Daniel 8
THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT
This chapter marks the change from Aramaic to Hebrew. The
character of
the
chapter is like that which immediately precedes it. It consists, like it, of
the
account of a vision, and the interpretation of it. The subject of this
vision is the overthrow of the Persian monarchy by Alexander the
Great,
the
division of his empire, and the oppression of
1 “In the third year of
the reign of King Belshazzar a vision
appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared
unto me at the first.” The text of the Septuagint does not differ
greatly
from the Hebrew, but avoids the strange anarthrous
position of anu, “I.”
The Septuagint renders this verse as a title to the
chapter, thus: “A vision
which I Daniel saw in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar (Beltasar),
after that I saw formerly (πρώτην – protean - first).” The Septuagint reading
seems to have been asher r’oeh anee. Theodotion and the Peshitta are in
verbal agreement
with the Massoretic text. The third year of the reign of King
Belshazzar. We learn now that Belshazzar did not reign independently; but
that for at least five years he exercised all the functions of government.
If
Daniel’s investiture with the position of third man in the
kingdom took
place on the occasion of Belshazzar’s
inauguration of his vice-regal reign,
Daniel may have remained in the royal service continuously
till the
overthrow of the Babylonian monarchy. After that which appeared ,into
me at the first. The former vision
referred to is clearly the vision of the
preceding chapter.
2 “And I saw in a vision;
and it came to pass, when I saw, that
I was at Shushan in the palace,
which is in the
I saw in a vision, and I was by the
several slight differences, “And I saw in the vision of my dream,
when I
was
in the city
vision to be at the gate Ailam.” Theodotion renders more briefly, “And I
was
in
palace), in
the province Ailam, and I was on the Ubal.” The Syriac is in
close agreement with the Massoretic. even to the transcription of the doubtful
word Ubal. The transcription is carried so far that medeenatha,
“a city,” is
used to translate m’deena, “a province.” Jerome renders mdeena,
cicitas, and
uval, portam, and beera, castrum. The word אולם
(‘oobal)
is nearly a hapax
legomenon (one time use), absolutely so if we do not admit joobal,
in
Jeremiah 17:8, to be the same word. There
is, as will have been seen above,
great differences among the versions.
The Septuagint and Jerome seem to have
read μlwa (oolam), “porch” or
“gate,” instead of oobal. Ewald would make the
word mean “river basin.” In many respects “marsh”
might be a more suitable
rendering. To the south-west of the present
ruins of
marsh, which may have been of old
date. The preposition liphnee, which occurs
in
v. 3, is all but meaningless applied
to a river, if we use it in its ordinary
meaning, “before.” If we take
it as meaning “eastward,” the ram would be
“westward” from Shushan, ie. between Shushan and the river; but
as
Daniel was in Shushan, he would
naturally state the position of the “ram”
in
relation to it rather than to the river. The preposition עַל (‘al)
is nearly
as
meaningless with regard to a river, unless a bridge or a boat is intended.
We are inclined to read oolam
as “porch.” At the same time, we know that
there was the river Ulai (Eulaeus) near Shushan. It is
mentioned in one of
the
inscriptions of Asshurbanipal in connection with Shushan (Smith’s
‘Asshurbanipal,’ p. 130). The palace.
Beera really seems to mean
“fortress.” It occurs ten times in
Esther, and always as the appellation of
Shushan.
In Nehemiah it is once used with this connotation, but twice in
regard to some building in
is
used for the temple. In Ezra 6:2 it is used of Achmetha,
equivalent to
it
might be reasoned that the translator had עיר before
him, but the translation
probably was due to ignorance of the precise meaning of the word.
In
Esther this word is rendered πόλις
(city). In Nehemiah it is once rendered
πόλις, once it is rendered ἅβὶρα - abira and once βιρα
– Bira. The derivation
of
the word seems to be from the Assyrian birtu.
It really means “citadel” or
“fortress,”
and thus may be compared with the Carthaginian byrsa.
Jerome’s
translation, castrum, suits this. It is not necessary to maintain that
at
this time Daniel was in Shushan. All that is implied is that in his dream
he
was there. Shushan is first referred to in the inscriptions of Asshur-banipal
as
the capital of Elam. In the history of that monarch there is an
inscription
of his given in which he says, “Shushan, the great city, the seat
of
their gods, the place of their oracle, I captured.” Then follows a
description
of the plunder he took from it. We do not know when it
recovered
from that overthrow. The name is said to be derived from the
number
of lilies growing in the neighborhood; but shushan, “a lily,” is a
Shemitie
word, and the Elamites are usually regarded as an Aryan people.
The
association of Babylon with Elam and Media must have been intimate,
if
any credit is to be placed on the Greek accounts of the marriage of
Nebuchadnezzar.
Hence, even if Elam was not, at the date specified, a
province
of the Babylonian Empire, perhaps never was, yet the Babylonian.
court
might well have envoys visiting the court of Elam. We find from the
well-known
inscription of Nabunahid, that he regarded Cyrus at first as a
friend
and deliverer from the formidable Astyages, King of Umman-Manda.
Daniel
may have been sent to Elam, although there is no necessity for
maintaining
that this was the case. It was not until he had conquered
Astyages
that Cyrus held possession of Shushan.
3
“Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold,
there
stood
before the river a ram which had two horns; and the two horns
were
high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up
last.”
The rendering of the Septuagint does not
differ essentially from the
Massoretic
Version, save in the last clause, which is rendered, “and the
higher
ascended (ἀνέβαινε
–
anebaine – came up last).” As in the former verse,
oobal
is translated “gate.” Certainly, as before
remarked, “before a river” is an
awkward combination;
“before” or “over against a gate” is intelligible. “Eastward,”
which
liphnee also means, will not suit the geographical circumstances, as
Shushan
itself stood on the east bank of the river Eulaeus, or Shapur. If,
further,
oobal means a “marsh,” as Jerome renders it, then “eastward”
would
not suit for the existing marsh is to the south-west of Shushan.
Theodotion
is in closer agreement with the Massoretic text, but does not
translate
(oobal, he merely transliterates it. The Peshitta is in strict
agreement
with the text of the Massoretes. Jerome, as we just said. in this
verse
renders oobal by paludem. Daniel in his vision seems looking from
the
walls of the citadel of Shushan, most likely even now the capital of the
triumphant
young conqueror. The progress of the arms of Cyrus would no
doubt
be viewed with apprehension by the court of Babylon. Daniel’s
thoughts
would be naturally filled with the new factor in the polities of the
Euphrates
valley. Hence it was not unnatural that the thoughts of the day
should
color the visions of the night. The choice of the animal — the ram
—
to represent the Medo-Persian monarchy is by some supposed to be
illustrated
by the figures of goats and rams on Persian cylinders. If it has
any
special meaning, it probably is that the monarchy had sprung up among
a
pastoral people. The empire, we know, was built up by two races — the race
which
last came into prominence became the predominant. Here in the symbol
before
us the unity of the empire is exhibited by the animal being one, and the
two
races are indicated by the two horns. The duality of the symbol ought to
4
“I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and
southward;
so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was
there
any that could deliver out of his hand: but he did according to
his
will, and became great.” The opening words of the Septuagint appear
to
be a translation of the last word of the preceding verse, ha’aheronah.
being
rendered, “after these things” — a change that
is not defensible. It is
more
important to note that in the Septuagint we have the four points of the
compass
mentioned, not merely three as in the Massoretic, “I saw the ram
butting
eastward, and northward, and westward, and southward.” Had a
falsarius
been wishful to supply the missing direction,
he would have
inserted
“eastward” between “northward” and “southward,” only if he had
begun
with “eastward” would he have gone on as it at present stands in the
Septuagint.
What could make him change “west” to “east”? Our opinion is
that
the Septuagint represents the original text. It is confirmatory of this that
Theodotion.
in strict agreement with the text of the Massoretes, renders
the
first direction (κατὰ θάλασσαν
– kata
thalassan - seaward). The Peshitta
renders
“westward,”
not by yammah, but by the term for “west” that became
common
in Exilic and post-Exilic Hebrew, ma’arab — the word that is
used
in the next verse. Ezekiel uses yammah for “west,” when in vision he
places
himself in Palestine, otherwise it is not used for “west” by Exilic and
post-Exilic
writers. If we take the statement of the next verse as fixing
what
was “the west” to the author of Daniel, where would “seaward” be?
If
we draw a line from Tress, where Alexander landed, and continue it
through
Babylon, it reaches the Persian Gulf. “Seaward” would mean
consequently
“eastward,” or approximately so, to one writing in Babylon.
A
great number of suggestions have been offered to explain the singular
omission
of “eastward” from the direction in which the ram pushes with his
horns,
Havernick, and following him Moses Stuart, assert that “eastward”
is
not mentioned because the Persians made no conquests to the east until
the
days of Darius Hystaspis, and then not permanent ones. Against this is
the
fact that Elam and Media were mainly east of Ansan. Further, the
picture
here given of the Persian Empire is not restricted to the days of
Cyrus
and Cambyses, but all through its course. As to the permanence of
these
Eastern conquests, the territories of Darius Codomannus east of
Arbela
embraced modern Persia and other territories to the confines of
India.
Keil assumes that the ram stands on the western bank of the Shapur,
so,
if he pushed eastward, it would be against his own capital; but if oobal
means
“a river,” then the only meaning possible for liphnee is “eastward.”
He
would then be butting towards the river across which the enemy was
likely
to come, moreover, against his own capital, unless the ram is
supposed
to be between the river and the city — an unlikely supposition, as
Shushan
was on the river Eulaeus. He further maintains that the unfolding
of
the power of Persia was towards these three named directions, and not
towards
the last, whatever that may mean. Ewald declares the ram does not
butt
towards the east, because that already belongs to him. As a matter of
fact,
and, as exhibited by the Book of Esther, welt known to the Jews, the
Persian
Empire did conquer towards the east. Behrmann says, “The ram
does
not push towards the east, because he comes from the east — a
delicacy
the Septuagint overlooked.” In point of fact, there is no word in
the
vision of the ram coming from anywhere — this delicacy (feinheit)
Professor
Behrmann has overlooked. Kranich-fold and Zockler follow this.
The
view of Bishop Newton, followed by Archdeacon Rose, is that the
east
had no importance to the Jews; but north and south had just a little.
Jephet-ihn-Ali
and several modern commentators think the three directions,
as
the three ribs, imply the limitation of the Persian Empire. It certainly was
recognized
by the Jews to be little, if at all, less than that of Alexander the
Great. The true explanation is that a direction has
dropped
out.
While “seaward” had ceased to mean “west” to the Jews in Babylon, it
did
not take long residence in Palestine to recover this name for “west.” A
copyist
living in Palestine, finding yammah, in the first place would
translate
it “westward;” then after “northward” he would, in the third
place,
come upon ms’arab, which also meant “west;” so naturally
he
dropped
the second of what seemed to him synonymous terms. If we are
correct
in our supposition, we have here demonstrative proof that Daniel
was
written by one living in Babylon. No beasts might stand before him.
All
the powers round Persia had to submit to him. And he became great
affords
proof, if proof were needed, that the vision applies to the whole of
5
“And as I was considering, behold, an he-goat came
from the
west
on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and
the
goat had a notable horn between his eyes.”
The Septuagint, when
completed
from Paulus Tellensis, agrees in the main with the Massoretic,
omitting
only “whole” before “earth.” The Christian MS. omits the clause,
“and
touched the ground,” but it is in Paulus Tellensis. As I was
considering.
“Was” is here used much as an auxiliary verb —
an Aramaic
usage.
“Considering” really suggests “meditating on.” He-goat. The word
here
used does not elsewhere occur in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is really an
Aramaic
word, though vocalized here after the analogy of Hebrew. On the
face
of the whole earth. The writer had probably in his
mind the negative
idea
expressed in the next verse; hence the word kol. A notable horn; “a
horn
of sight;” a horn that no one could fail to remark upon. No symbol
could
express in a more graphic way the rapidity of the conquests of
Alexander
the Great than this of the goat that flew over the ground. One
can
parallel with this the four wings of the leopard in ch. 7. It is singular
that
Alexander should generally on his coins be figured as horned. Had this
vision
been due to a knowledge of this — which could not have escaped a
Jew
of the days of the Maccabees — the writer would certainly have made
Alexander
not a goat, but a ram. as it is a ram’s horn that is intended to be
figured
on the portraits of Alexander. As everybody knows, this refers to
the
fable that he was the son of Jupiter Ammon, the ram-horned. It is
difficult
to assign a reason why the goat was chosen as the symbol of the
Grecian
power, save that, as compared with the Persian power, the Greek
6
“And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I
had
seen
standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his
power.” The
differences of the Septuagint from the received text are slight
here.
Oobal is still translated πύλῃ – pulae - gateway; it renders, “fury of
his rage”
rather
- than “fury of his power.” The
Massoretic, as the less obvious collocation,
is
the better reading. Theodotion and the Peshitta leave oobal untranslated.
The
latter omits the last clause of the Massoretic. In the Hebrew the ram is
called
Baal-karnayeem, “lord of two horns.” Alexander’s war against
Persia
was one of simple aggression.
7
“And I saw him
come close unto the ram, and he was moved
with
choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns:
and
there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast
him
down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none
that
could deliver the ram out of his hand.” The two Greek versions,
though
differing very much in the Greek words chosen as equivalent to the
Hebrew,
yet both represent a text practically identical with that of the
Massoretes.
The Peshitta omits the introductory “behold,” but otherwise
can
scarcely be said to differ essentially from the received text, though
there
are some peculiarities due to mistaken reading, but unimportant. The
word
yithmormar, “he was embittered,” is a word that occurs here and in
the
eleventh chapter. The root, however, as might be guessed from its
meaning,
is not uncommon, being found in Genesis Exodus, Samuel,
Kings,
Isaiah, Ruth, Job, and Zechariah. It does not occur in Western Aramaic,
but
does in Eastern (compare Peshitta II Samuel 18:33; Acts 17:16). It is quite
such
a word as a man writing among those who spoke Eastern Aramaic might use.
Alexander
advanced always against Darius; he would not even speak of treating
with
him. After the passage of the Granicus, he pushed on to Cilicia, overthrew
Darius
at Issus, B.C..
333; then, after the conquest of Egypt, advanced against
Him
again at Arbela, and once more inflicted on him an overwhelming defeat.
When
Darius fled from the field, Alexander pursued him to the shores of
the
Caspian and into Bactria and Sogdiana, till Darius fell a victim to the
treachery
of Bessus. Certainly relentlessness was the most marked
character
of Alexander’s pursuit of Darius. The horns of the Persian power
were
broken, thrown to the earth, and trodden underfoot.
8
“Therefore the he-goat waxed very great: and when he
was
strong,
the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable
ones
toward the four winds of heaven.” The two
Greek versions differ
from
the Massoretic only in this — that the four horns are not mentioned
as
notable horns, but simply ἕτερα – hetera - other.
The Peshitta agrees closely
with
the Massoretic. The Greek versions indicate that the reading they had
before
them was ‘“haroth instead of hazooth; hazooth has been
borrowed
from
the fifth verse. The empire of Alexander had reached
its greatest
extent
when the young conqueror fell a victim to what seems malarial
fever,
aggravated by his drinking. His life was broken off before its
legitimate
conclusion. At his death there was great confusion.
Perdiccas
assumed
the guardianship of the children of the conqueror, and attempted
to
succeed him in the empire. After his death Antigonus in turn attempted
to
secure the imperial power, but was defeated and slain at the battle of
Ipsus.
The empire of Alexander was then divided into four main portions:
In
the two first of these there were several revolutions, but finally
the
Antigonids established themselves in Macedon, and the Attalids in Asia
9
“And out of one of them came forth a little horn,
which
waxed
exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east. and
toward
the pleasant land.” The Greek
versions here differ considerably
from
the Massoretic text. The Septuagint is as follows: “And out of one there
sprang
a strong horn, and it prevailed and smote toward the south, ἐπὶ νὸτον
–
epi
noton – toward
the south; southwest - and toward the east, and toward
the
north.” In this case, ἐπὶ νὸτον
is clearly a doublet — an alternative rendering
that
has got into the text from the margin. Ἐπὶ βορρᾶν - Epi Borran – north;
northern
- results from reading tzephonah (צְפונָה) instead of tzebee (צֶבִי).
Theodotion
renders, “From
one of them went forth a strong horn, and was
magnified
exceedingly to
the south and to the power” — reading צָבָא (tzaba),
“host,”
for tzebee. It is to be observed that both translate mitztze’eeroth
as
(ἰσχυρὸν
–
ischuron - strong) instead of “little.” The reason of
this is that they
have
taken מְ as equivalent to ex, therefore equivalent to a
negative. The
Peshitta
agrees with the
Authorized in reading mitztzeeroth as “little,” but leaves
out
the difficult final
word rendered “the pleasant land” in our Authorized
Version.
Jerome translates
mitztze’eeroth by modicum, and tzebee by fortitudinem
—
A combination
of Theodotion and the Massoretic; he must have had tzaba in
his
text instead of tzebee, — this may have been due to the fact that tzaba
occurs
in the next verse. The reference is sufficiently
obvious to Antiochus.
The
description is accurate; he sprang from one of the four horns or
dynasties
that succeeded the great conqueror. He carried his arms to the
east,
but mainly to the south against Egypt. The great difficulties are in the
two
Hebrew words mitztz”eeroth and tzebee. As to the first
word, the fact
that
the two Greek versions have read it are conclusive against the
suggestion
that we should omit ˆmi. (min).
Jephet-ibn-Ali takes min as
denoting
the origin of the horn, “from a little one.” The readings alike of the
Septuagint and Theodotion could have sprung from the Massoretic reading,
10
“And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and
it cast
down
some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped
upon
them.” The
reading of the Septuagint is very different after the first clause,
“And
it was exalted to the stars of heaven, and it was shattered to the earth
by
the stars, and by them trampled down.” The verb תַּסֵּל (tappayl)
translated
“cast down,” has been read as if it had been תֻּפַּל (tooppal). So
too
the last verb has evidently been read וַירְמְסוּהוּ (vayyir’msoohoo)
instead
of וַתִּרְמְסֵם (vattir’msaym),
due to the resemblance which there
was
between yod and tan in the older script. Theodotion differs hardly less
from
the Massoretic, “And it was magnified to the power of heaven, and it
fell
to the earth from the power of heaven and from the stars, and they
trode
them down.” The verb translated “fell” is evidently read with a
vocalization
different from both the Massoretic and the Septuagint.
The
sense of Theodotion is more in accordance with the Septuagint than with the
Massoretic.
The Peshitta and the Vulgate agree with the Massoretic. The
question
of which reading is to be preferred can scarcely be settled without
regarding the meaning of the terms here used. The crucial point is — What
is
the meaning of the “host of heaven”? The general consensus of
interpreters
is that this refers to Israel. Some maintain that the best of
heaven
is Israel, and the stars their leaders (Glassins); the stars are the
Levites
(Grotius). Moses Stuart would hold the host to be the priests, and
the
stars the teachers. Kliefoth is right in commencing first with the picture,
and
requiring that it be realized in thought. The horn grows and grows
before
Daniel’s gaze, until it seems to touch the stars, that is, the host of
heaven.
As to what is meant by the stars, we must look elsewhere for an
explanation.
Have we any right to take “the host of heaven” as meaning the
people
of God? The phrase, “host of heaven,” occurs
elsewhere in
Scripture
nearly a score of times, and it never means anything else than the
stars
or the angels. Therefore all interpretations that make this mean either
the
people of God or the Levites, must be thrown aside. It may, however,
mean
the people of God mediately. A quite elaborate line of deduction has
been
brought forward — the promise to Abraham (Genesis 15:5), to
Isaac
(Genesis 26:4), that their seed should be as the stars of heaven, is
brought
into connection with the use of the word “hosts” in regard to
Israel
(Numbers 1:52, etc.) — and the title given to God as the God of
Israel,
“Jehovah of hosts.” This is very ingenious, but it has no support
from
scriptural usage or from the usage in apocalyptic writings. In the
Book
of Enoch, which, since it is modeled on this book, furnishes us with
the
earliest commentary on it, we find the stars are invariably the symbol of
the
angels. When we pass to the Book of Revelation, we find the same
thing.
We find when we pass on to the tenth chapter of this book, that
all
the
nations are regarded as under the rule of some special angel We must
apply,
so far as we can, rules of interpretation which the author himself
supplies
us with. Using this guide, we see next that, when a nation was
defeated
and oppressed, its angel or star was regarded as thrown to the
earth
and trodden underfoot. The treatment Epiphanes meted out to Egypt
and
Palestine seems specially referred to. If we take the reading of the
Septuagint,
then the reference will be to the humiliation Epiphanes received at
the
hands of the Romans first, and then the Jews, and lastly the Elamites,
whose
temple he attempted to plunder.
11
“Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the
host,
and
by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his
sanctuary
was cast down.” This is said by Bevan to be the most difficult
verse
in this whole book. There is a difference here between the Q’ri and
the
K’thib. The latter reads הרים, the hiphil of רום,
while the former
reads
הרם, the hophal of the same verb At
first sight the difficulty is not
lessened
by consideration of the versions. The Septuagint as it at present
stands
is utterly unintelligible, “Until the leader of the host shall save the
captivity,
and by him everlasting mountains were broken down, and their
place
and sacrifice taken away, and he placed it in the very ground, and he
prospered
[reading with Syriac] and was, and the holy place shall be laid
waste.”
This confusion is due to confluence of readings, and is not difficult
to
disentangle with the help of the Massoretic text. Up to the last two
words
the Septuagint is a translation of a text differing from the Massoretic
simply
by intelligible variations and repetitions not uncommon in the
Septuagint.
The first clause of the Septuagint originally was probably, “Till the
prince shall deliver the captivity,” reading שְׁבִי (shebee) instead of צַבָא
(tzaba)
— a scribe, finding צבא in his Hebrew, then added the
translation
of
it to the margin of his Greek copy, from which it got into the text. The
original
of the Septuagint had also יַצִּיּל (yatztzeel) instead of הִגְדִיל (hig’deel)
—
a confusion easily made in the older script, in which י and ה were like.
We
learn from the Talmud (Shabb., 103b) that ג was liable to be mistaken
by
scribes for צ. Moreover, “captivity” would naturally suggest
נצל “to
deliver.” The second clause is, “By him the everlasting
mountains were
broken
down.” Here hayreem has been read with the K’thib, and vocalized
as
if it were hareem, and tameed, “continual,” translated as
equivalent to
עולם (‘olam),
“everlasting.” The next clause reveals the other meaning of
tameed, “sacrifice,” which probably had been written on the margin, and
then
dropped into the text. The latter part of the Septuagint verse appears
to
be confused with the latter part of the following verse according to the
Massoretes.
Theodotion is even less intelligible than the Septuagint, “Until
the
leader of the host shall save the captivity, and through him the sacrifice
was
broken down, and he prospered, and the holy place shall be made
desolate.”
It is to be noticed that the first clause here agrees with the Septuagint.
It
is possible that “and he prospered” is a doublet, הִצְלִיַח being read for
חֻשְׁלַד
in some copy. The
Peshitta differs from both the Greek versions,
“Until
it arrive to the chiefs of the host, and by it was set up in perpetuity,
and
preparing he strengthened the sanctuary,” and while it is difficult to
understand
the origin of the variation in the first clause, it is clear that in
the
second clause the translator must have read hish-leem for hooshlak.
The one thing that seems clear is that the reading of the K’thib is to be
preferred.
We should read hayreem, not hooram. Only the first of these
could
be read “mountains.” If we translate the words as they stand, we
shall
certainly be removed out of the region of all the commentators. It is
assumed
that “the little horn” is the subject of this sentence; but “horn” is
feminine
in Hebrew, and the verbs here are in the masculine; this is against
it
being the nominative. The “prince of the host,” then, must be
the
nominative
of the verbs and subject of the sentence. The rendering of the
first
clause ought to be, then, “Until the
prince of the host magnify himself
(I
Samuel 12:24), and by himself he shall offer the daily
sacrifice. And
he
shall cast down the foundation of his holy place,” reading hishlayk
instead
of hooshlak. We should feel strongly inclined to transfer the first
“and”
to hayreem, and, changing the punctuation, read, “Until
the prince of
the
host shall make himself greater than he” — viz, the tyrant represented
by
“the little horn” — “and shall offer the daily sacrifice.”
If we might read
hishleem
with the Peshitta instead of hoosh-lak, we get a satisfactory
meaning
to the last clause, in which case we should render, “He shall
complete
the place of his sanctuary.” We would understand by “complete,”
“to
perfectly purify.” Taking the Massoretic text thus
with little
modification,
we have
a description of the successes of Judas Maccabaeus,
who
was prince of the host, and as such became stronger than Epiphanes,
and
then cleansed the temple, and offered the continual daily sacrifice. We
give,
as a curiosity, the note of Saadiah Gaon: “The King of Ishmael was
more
powerful than the kings of Rome who had Jerusalem, and he took
Jerusalem
from them by force.”
12
“And an host was given him against the daily
sacrifice by
reason
of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and
it
practiced, and prospered.” The renderings of the Septuagint. and
Theodotion
are closely related, and both differ from the Massoretic text. The
first
is, “And the sins were upon the sacrifice, and righteousness was fallen to
the
earth, and he (or, it) did, and prospered.” Theodotion renders, “And sin
was
placed (given) upon the sacrifice, and righteousness is fallen to the
earth,
and he (it) did and prospered.” The Peshitta is nearer the Massoretic
text,
but better in accordance with the Authorized Version, “A host was
given
against the perpetuity, in transgression the holy place was thrown to
the
ground, and he did and prospered.” From the fact that צָבָא
(tzaba) is
omitted
from the two Greek versions, we venture to omit it also; it has
probably
been inserted from the verse above. Both versions also omit the
preposition
before” transgression;” we omit it also. We would thus render,
“And
transgression was upon the sacrifice, and,” reading תַּשְׁלַך, “truth
was
cast to the ground, and it did and prospered.” After Judas Maccabaeus
had
cleansed the temple and offered sacrifices, sin mingled with it. We
know
that the stricter Hasidim, objected to the foreign alliances into which
the
Maccabees were inclined to enter; the battle of Beth-zecharias was
largely
lost by the abstention of the stricter party. After that, Lysias,
representing
really the same movement as Epiphanes, advanced to the
capture
of Bethshur. Thus it might be said of the little horn, that “it
did and
prospered.” Were it not that there is no
authority for it in the versions, we
תַּשֵׁלִם instead
of תַּשְׁלַך.
In that case we should render, “And
transgression
was upon the sacrifice” — regarding this sacrifice as the
atonement
for the transgression (Leviticus 16:21) — “and truth shall
make peace in the land, and do and prosper.”
The Temporary Triumph of Violence
(vs. 1-12)
The
good use of God’s revelation leads to the impartation of further and
clearer
revelation. “To those who have, it shall be given.” The former
vision
had well exercised Daniel’s mind; now a more minute vision is
vouchsafed.
In the improvement of character is piety’s reward.
AMBITION OF
MEN. Lands, cities, palaces, extensive provinces, all fail
to
satisfy the man in whose breast vulgar ambition
dwells. The possessor of
the
great kingdom of Persia did not conduct himself as a man, but as a silly
ram.
He was supreme master of these things; but since he did not extract
advantage
or enjoyment from them, he could not be said to possess them.
His
one thought was how to acquire more. Instead of cherishing a grateful
disposition
that God had given him so much, and afforded him such fine
opportunities
for useful service, his dominant passion was to dispossess
others
of their dominion. Nor did the fact afflict his soul, that in the career
of
violence, much innocent blood would be shed, men would be diverted
from
occupations of husbandry, and misery would be widely sown. The
palace
in which vain Ambition hatches her plots is no better than a
pesthouse.
And
the monarch who is prodigal with human blood is no other
than
a murderer. Like Satan, the destroyer, “he also goeth about
seeking
whom he may devour.” (I Peter 5:8)
DEADLY REVENGE. The arbiter of war
settles nothing. The victor today
is
the vanquished tomorrow. The memories of the conquered
people
hold,
with a deathless tenacity, purposes of revenge; and if the conqueror
himself
does not live to see his military fortune reversed, his successors feel
the blow with accumulated fury. The ram, with his two
unequal horns,
pushed
westward, northward, and southward, and for a moment was
accounted
great. But ere long the goat with one strong horn assailed him
with
uncontrollable rage, smote him to the ground, and trod him underfoot.
The
arm of muscular strength soon decays. If a monarch has
nothing better
to depend upon than an arm of flesh, his glory will soon fade. It is
surprising
how that, generation after generation, monarchs still rely upon
human battalions rather than on THE LIVING GOD! So ingrained in their
imperial
nature is ambitions pride, that they need to be bruised and
pulverized
in a mortar before the pride can be extracted. (Proverbs 27:22)
Very
significantly is it said respecting this he-goat, that “when he was
strong,
the great horn was broken.” Alexander, surnamed by flatterers “the
Great,”
was to the kingdom of Macedon merely a horn — a weapon of
offence.
Can there be a more humiliating statement? If God has given to
the
inferior animals natural horns, they are
intended to serve as defensive
weapons. If the animal has any native
sagacity, it will reserve its horns for
fitting
occasions of danger; for if it should rush into needless hostilities, its
horns
may be broken, and in the hour of peril the animal will become a
helpless prey. How often does God snap the horn
of human power in the
hour of boastful triumph! Herod was drinking the sweet
potion of profane
flattery,
when an angel smote him, and he was eaten up of worms. (Acts 12:23)
Nebuchadnezzar
was feasting on the pride of his great success, when his
reason
forsook him, and he was degraded to a place among the cattle.
Alexander
sat down to weep, because there seemed no further scope for
his
ambition; but God’s shaft of disease pierced him, and left him a corpse.
PROFANE.
If God takes away, He also gives. Where the one strong horn
had
been broken off, four other horns came up instead. The vital energy
which
could produce this is the direct gift of God. Whoever is meant by
this
“little
horn,” he ought to have learned, as the very first lesson of his
life,
that
he had been raised up by God to replace one who had been removed
by death, But instead of learning lessons of
humility and pious trust from
the
patent scenes of human mortality, men, for the most part, become more
presumptuous
and profane. No
outward events permanently impress the
soul.
Nothing but the mysterious grace of God can soften and purify man’s
heart.
This “little
horn” ventures to assail the very stars of heaven. As high
as
the stars are above the earth — as bright and as useful — so are
God’s
saints compared with
earthly and sensual men.
Against these this proud
ruler
arrays his hostile forces — yea against the Prince of heaven. He
corrupts
the priesthood, defiles God’s sanctuary, interrupts the daily
sacrifice. This is a sin of sins — a crime of blackest
dye. Herein we see
what
is the natural effect of military conquest upon the victor himself. It:
Ø
hurries
him along to the brink of self-destruction.
·
PRESENT
TRIUMPHS OVER THE RIGHTEOUS ARE DIVINELY
PERMITTED, IN’ ORDER TO SECURE HIGHER GOOD.
Although the
leaders
among the Jews were vastly superior to the invading hordes of
Antiochus
— superior in virtue and morality — nevertheless they
were far
from perfect. A strange intermingling of
good and evil — of light and
darkness
— appeared in their nature. So great was God’s regard for His
chosen
people, that He made adversity to serve as moral
medicine. Military
disaster
may serve as moral triumph. The armies of proud monarchs God
used
as His instruments of chastisement. The wicked are His hand — His
sword.
The victorious army usually boasts that, by their own might, they
have conquered. They
can see no other result or end than their own fame.
But
God sees other and remoter results. In this case it was not simply
because
Syria’s army was mightier than the Jewish force, that the former
triumphed,
and made the daily sacrifice to cease. The real cause was that
transgression
was found in Israel; and if God’s remedy was severe, it was
not
more severe than needful. Israel was smitten before the Canaanites,
because
a spirit el mercenary selfishness was found in Achan. (Joshua 7)
The
cause of righteousness
may be arrested, impeded, dishonored, if some
flagrant
sin be found in its leaders. The kingdom of
righteousness can
only
be advanced by
righteous methods. It is true that God had promised
to
shield His people Israel
from their foes, but there was a condition, tacit
or
expressed, viz. that
they should honor His commands.
BECAUSE
TRANSGRESSION WAS FOUND IN ISRAEL!
13
“Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint
said
unto
that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision
concerning
the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to
give
both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?” Our
Authorized
rendering is clearly mistaken; it ought not to be “saint,” but
“holy
one,” as in the
Revised Version. The versions leave palmoni, “a
certain
one,” untranslated. Fust’s suggestion, held also by Behrmann, is
that
this is a contraction for paloni almoni. The renderings of the versions
are
worthy of note. The Septuagint., “And I
heard one holy one speaking, and
another
holy one said to Phehnouni who spoke, How long shall the vision
stand,
and the removed sacrifice, and the sin of desolation given, and the
holy
place be desolate to be trodden underfoot (εἰς καταπάτημα – eis katapataema
–
to
be trampled down)?” Here the word στήσεται -
staesetai - shall stand, is supposed
by
Professor Bevan to be an addition
by one who did not fully comprehend the
sentence.
Following Gratz,
Professor Bevan suggests a word, מוּרָם (mooram),
that sim (שִׂם),“to set up,” has
been read instead of shomaym (שֹׁמֵם), must be due
to inattention to the Greek. In it there is nothing about “set up,” unless he transfers
στήσεται,from
its place in
the beginning of the sentence to the middle, and changes it
to the active voice.
Equally extraordinary is the suggestion that the translators read
יצבא,
instead
of וצבא. The truth is, the
introduction of ἐρημωθήσεται
–
eraemothaesetai – multitude; host ? - is probably due to a gloss or a confluence
of
readings (of ἐρημώσεως
–
eraemoseos – desolation - and συμπατηθήσεται
–
sumpataethaesetai – trampled under foot - ???? – Best I could come
up
with – CY – 2014). Theodotion
is in close agreement with the
Septuagint,
save
in the last clause, which he renders,
“And the sanctuary and the power be
trodden
underfoot.” The
Peshitta is closer to
the Massoretic, “And I heard a
holy
one who spake, and a holy one said to palmoni, who spake, When
shall
the vision of the perpetuity (daily sacrifice?), and of sin and of corruption
be
completed, and the holy place and the host be trodden
underfoot?”
The
translators must have read shahata instead of shomaym.
“Completed,”
nesh-tlem, may have been added, as στήσεται
in the Greek, but the fact that
all
the versions
have a word not represented in the Massoretic would indicate the
probability
that something has dropped out.
Some part
of the verb שׂוּם is
suggested
by the Greek Version, whereas some portion of שָׁלַם; is
suggested
by the Peshitta. Daniel hears one of those watching angels
who
desire
to look into the evolution of the Divine purpose concerning man and
his
salvation, asking another, “How long shall be the desolation of
Jerusalem
under Epiphanes?”
The irregular construction here suggests
corruption.
We would render the speech of the angel, “How long — the
vision,
the sacrifice — the sin of desolation to give the sanctuary and the
service
to be trodden underfoot?” as if Daniel had only heard snatches of
what
was said; we would, we may say, omit the “and” before “sanctuary.”
The
Septuagint translators may have omitted צָבָא; (tzaba), thinking only
of
its
ordinary meaning, “host,” forgetful of the fact that it is used of the
temple
service in Numbers 4:23. These angels are
most interested in the
length
of time that the sanctuary shall remain desolate. This may indicate
that
it was evident, from the vision, that the period of desolation was a
limited
one. The scene presented to the imagination is striking. The
seer, as
he
gazes on the vision appearing to him over the marsh at Susa, hears
angelic
voices that direct attention to what was most important to him and
to
his people. To the Israelites of the period of the Maccabees, the length
of
time that the temple service would be in abeyance was of the highest
importance.
It was well that they should know that the time was shortened
14
“And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three
hundred
days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” The Massoretic
reading
is here clearly corrupt. “Unto me” ought to be “unto him,” as
proved
by the versions and necessitated by sense. The Septuagint is somewhat
violent
in construction, but means, “And he said to him, Until evenings and
mornings
are two thousand three hundred days, and the sanctuary shall be
purified.”
Theodotion agrees closely with the Septuagint only he has “five
hundred”
instead of “three hundred.” The Peshitta agrees with the
Massoretic,
save as above mentioned — “him” instead of “me,” and the
last
clause, which ought naturally to rendered “and the sacrifice be
purified.”
The Hebrew phrase for this clause is an unnatural one — it might
be
rendered, “And holiness (or, ‘holy thing,’ ‘offering’) shall be justified.”
The
want of the article is not an objection, as the manner of the author is to
use
the article sparingly. The word translated “cleansed”
really means
“justified;” it is the only
example of this part of the verb. All the versions
translate
as if the word had been some derivative of טָהַר (tahar). The
period
referred to is that between the desolation inflicted on the temple by
Antiochus
Epiphanes and its cleansing by Judas Maccabaeus. It is
somewhat
difficult to fix the exact space of time intended by these two
thousand
three hundred evening-mornings. Does it mean two thousand
three
hundred days? For this may be urged that this succession. “evening
and
morning,” not “morning and evening,” resembles Genesis 1. If this
resemblance
is intentional, then “evening-morning” means a space of
twenty-four
hours. If the days are literal days, then the space of time would
amount
to nearly six years and a half, if’ we
take the year here as three
hundred
and sixty days. Another view is that day and night are separated
and
each reckoned; hence the number of days involved would be eleven
hundred
and fifty — fifty-five days more than three average years, and
seventy
days more than three years of three hundred and sixty days each.
If,
however, the year be the lunar year of three hundred and fifty-four days,
it
closely approximates to three years and a quarter. The period that one
would
naturally think of is that between the setting up of the abomination
of
desolation (I Macabbees 1:54), on the fifteenth day of Casleu, in the hundred
and
forty-fifth year of the Seleucid era to the rededication of the temple on
the
twenty-fifth of Casleu, in the hundred and forty-eighth year (from B.C.
167
to B.C.
164), but that is only three years and ten days. If the first and
last
of these years were respectively the fifth and seventh of a metonic
cycle,
in each of which there were intercalary months, then there is only a
difference
of eighteen days between the interval given above and the actual
historical
interval. If, however, we are to believe Maerobius (‘Satur.,’ 1:13,
§
9), and hold that the intercalations were supplied by adding the three
months
in one year, if one of the years in question was the year in the cycle
in
which this took place, then the interval would be twelve days too much.
In
either case the difference is very small. The attempt to take the interval
as
two thousand three hundred days leads to very arbitrary results.
The Triumph of Evil (vs. 1-14)
not
only powerful, but ascendant and dominant, apparently sweeping all
Ø
Evil
is destructive. Kingdoms under the sway of evil
become mutually
destructive.
The successive visions of the world-empires represent them
with
increasingly destructive characteristics. The first brings before us a
monstrous
image of incongruous elements, but with a certain unity and
peaceful
relation of parts (ch. 2.). The second shows us a series of
ravenous
beasts, which, however, are not represented as all fighting one
with
another (ch. 7.). The third introduces us to animals, by nature
peaceful,
in fierce mutually destructive conflict. Thus as the knowledge of
the
evil kingdoms grows, they are seen to be more destructive, even in
their
most peaceful relations. The more we see of evil the more shall we
feel
its essentially destructive character (James 1:15).
Ø The
world without God deteriorates. These kingdoms get worse and
worse. The moral
progress of mankind is dependent on OUR
RELATION
WITH GOD! — on our submission to His
Redemptive
and educational influence. When these are discarded,
Ø
When
evil triumphs in the state, the exercise
of religious ordinances
are
endangered
(v. 11). Persecution usually has a
moral cause.
The protest of pure public worship
is regarded as a danger to the
Ø Evil is inimical to truth, and when it
triumphs truth suffers. Evil
is
darkness; it is essentially a lie (John 8:44). Truth is a
protest against
evil,
therefore evil “casts truth to the ground” (v. 12; see
Ø
Evil gains power from its prosperity. It
“practices
and prospers.” When
it
flourishes it puts on an imposing appearance and grows by popularity.
Thus
the more it prospers the more it tends to prosper.
Ø
It was foreseen
and predicted. It
was foreknown by
God
from the Creation. It was known when the promises of Divine
blessing
were given. All the plans of Providence were made in view
of
it. Yet
they are bright and hopeful (Romans 8:19-23).
Ø
It
is converted into a chastisement for sin and a means of purifying those
who
suffer by it. Though wicked men may only intend harm to God’s
people,
the wrong they do may be the means of the
highest good.
Ø
Its
duration is limited. A period is named for the termination of its sway
(vs.
13-14). Evil is but for a time, and this is short compared with
eternity.
God holds power over it and fixes its limitations.
Ø Ultimately
evil shall be ENTIRELY CAST OUT! Then the triumph
of
goodness will
be the greater by its contrast with the sway of evil.
The
glory of Christ in
redeeming from sin and restoring the world to God
Is
only possible after evil
has had an opportunity of asserting its power
15
“And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen
the
vision,
and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before
me
as the appearance of a man.” The versions here are unimportant.
Daniel
desires to understand the meaning of this vision. From this we see
that,
at the time when this book was written, it was understood that
prophets
might be ignorant of the meaning of the revelations made to them.
This
is at variance with the assumption of even believing critics, that if a
prophecy
were given to a prophet, he must have understood the reference
of
the message. On the accuracy of this assumption, they found the
rejection
of any interpretation of a prophecy which sees more in it than the
prophet
could have seen. This latest critical date of Daniel is separated by
approximately
two centuries and a half from prophecy in actual existence in
Malachi.
The tradition of the conditions of the phenomenon would still be
vital.
The phrase before us probably means that Daniel applied the various
Babylonian
formulae to the dream, to find the interpretation , but,
suspicious
of them, he still continued his search. In
answer to Daniel’s
search,
there stood before him one having “the
appearance of a man
(gaber)”
— an angelic being in human form. The Hebrew
word translated
“man”
is gaber, which suggests the name given to the angel, “Gabriel.”
Modes of Supersensual Vision
(vs. 2, 13, 15)
“I saw in a
vision” (v. 2); “Then I heard one
saint speaking, and another
saint” (v. 13); “Behold, there stood before me as the
appearance of a
man” (v. 15). Of the next vision, the time
should be noted — two years
after the last, Belshazzar still
living; and the place, viz. Shushan. Daniel
seems not to have been there in reality, but only in vision.
So Ezekiel from
Babylon
was “brought
in the visions of God to Jerusalem.” This vision
concerned the overthrow of Persia, and so the prophet was
placed at the
center of the empire, whence he might see the desolation
coming. This
1. We have symbols. (vs.
1-12.) Then:
2.
Answering voices. (vs.
13-14.)
3. Communication from God through Gabriel. (vs. 15-27.) This may
suggest discourse on some modes of coming to the vision of supersensual
·
CONTEMPLATING PICTURES IN THE WORLD OF SENSE. Daniel
was brought first into contact with symbol — picture of
power and action,
the ram, the goat; destruction of the ram; certain
transformations of the
goat. So man’s first lesson now comes through the
sense-pictures of the
world. This depends, as
a fact, on the truth that the world is one
transparency, through which is
ever shining supersensual truth. Behind all
phenomena of space and time lie luminous eternal
truths. Consider how
much we can see in and learn from:
Ø
Our present home of the material world
Ø
The life-forms with which it is crowded.
Ø
Social relations. How much of spiritual truth may be seen, e.g., in
paternity, the family, civil constitution, law, etc.!
Ø
Our training through the successive incidents of life.
·
LISTENING TO ANSWERING VOICES. “Then I heard one saint,”
etc. (v. 13). Here we pass to a higher realm than that of
sense pictures,
into the arena of pure intelligence. An angel-voice
addressed Daniel, or
was about to address him, when another, interrupting,
requested the first
angel to afford Daniel definite information on certain
points; which he did.
Ø
From the conversation of the angels.
True, we cannot hear this;
but much of angel-discourse
is recorded in the book. Think of Stier’s
Ø
From the controversies of the
Church. Present and past. What have they
been but contentions,
out of which truth has come with a clearer