In the vision of the night he had seen the four winds of heaven

travailing, or bursting forth, on the great sea;[489] and from those

tumultuous waves came four immense wild beasts, each unlike the other.

The first was a lion, with four eagles' wings. The wings were plucked

off, and it then raised itself from the earth, stood on its feet like

a man, and a man's heart was given to it.

The second was like a bear, raising itself on one side, and having

three ribs between its teeth; and it is bidden to "arise and devour

much flesh."

The third is a leopard, or panther, with four wings and four heads,

to which dominion is given.

The fourth--a yet more terrible monster, which is left undescribed,

as though indescribable--has great devouring teeth of iron, and feet

that stamp and crush.[490] It has ten horns, and among them came up a

little horn, before which three of the others are plucked up by the

roots; and this horn has eyes, and a mouth speaking great things.

Then the thrones were set for the Divine judges,[491] and the Ancient

of Days seats Himself--His raiment as white snow, His hair as bright

wool, His throne of flames, His wheels of burning fire. A stream of

dazzling fire goes out before Him. Thousand thousands stand before

Him; ten thousand times ten thousand minister to Him. The judgment is

set; the books are opened. The fourth monster is then slain and burned

because of the blaspheming horn; the other beasts are suffered to live

for a season and a time, but their dominion is taken away.[492]

* * * * *

But then, in the night vision, there came "one even as a son of man"

with the clouds of heaven, and is brought before the Ancient of Days,

and receives from Him power and glory and a kingdom--an everlasting

dominion, a kingdom that shall not be destroyed--over _all people_,

nations, and languages.

Such is the vision, and its interpretation follows. The heart of

Daniel "is pierced in the midst of its sheath" by what he has seen,

and the visions of his head troubled him. Coming near to one of them

that stood by--the angelic ministrants of the Ancient of Days--he

begs for an interpretation of the vision.

It is given him with extreme brevity.

The four wild beasts represent four kings, the founders of four

successive kingdoms. But the ultimate and eternal dominion is not

to be with them. It is to be given, till the eternities of the

eternities, to "the holy ones of the Lofty One."[493]

What follows is surely an indication of the date of the Book. Daniel

is quite satisfied with this meagre interpretation, in which no

single detail is given as regards the first three world-empires,

which one would have supposed would chiefly interest the real Daniel.

His whole curiosity is absorbed in _a detail_ of the vision of the

_fourth_ monster. It is all but inconceivable that a contemporary

prophet should have felt no further interest in the destinies which

affected the great golden Empire of Babylon under which he lived, nor

in those of Media and Persia, which were already beginning to loom

large on the horizon, and should have cared only for an incident in

the story of a fourth empire as yet unheard of, which was only to be

fulfilled four centuries later. The interests of every other Hebrew

prophet are always mainly absorbed, so far as earthly things are

concerned, in the immediate or not-far-distant future. That is true

also of the author of Daniel, if, as we have had reason to see, he

wrote under the rule of the persecuting and blaspheming horn.

In his appeal for the interpretation of this symbol there are fresh

particulars about this horn which had eyes and spake very great

things. We are told that "his look was more stout than his fellows";

and that "he made war against the saints and prevailed against them,

until the Ancient of Days came. Then judgment was given to the

saints, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."

The interpretation is that the fourth beast is an earth-devouring,

trampling, shattering kingdom, diverse from all kingdoms; its ten horns

are ten kings that shall arise from it.[494] Then another king shall

arise, diverse from the first, who shall subdue three kings, shall

speak blasphemies, shall wear out the saints, and will strive to change

times and laws. But after "a time, two times, and a half,"[495] the

judgment shall sit, and he will be annihilated, and his dominion shall

be given for ever to the people of the saints of the Most High.

Such was the vision; such its interpretation; and there can be no

difficulty as to its general significance.

I. That the four empires, and their founders, are not identical with

the four empires of the metal colossus in Nebuchadrezzar's dream,

is an inference which, apart from dogmatic bias, would scarcely

have occurred to any unsophisticated reader. To the imagination of

Nebuchadrezzar, the heathen potentate, they would naturally present

themselves in their strength and towering grandeur, splendid and

impassive and secure, till the mysterious destruction smites them. To

the Jewish seer they present themselves in their cruel ferocity and

headstrong ambition as destroying wild beasts. The symbolism would

naturally occur to all who were familiar with the winged bulls and

lions and other gigantic representations of monsters which decorated

the palace-walls of Nineveh and Babylon. Indeed, similar imagery had

already found a place on the prophetic page.[496]

II. The turbulent sea, from which the immense beasts emerge after the

struggling of the four winds of heaven upon its surface, is the sea

of nations.[497]

III. The first great beast is Nebuchadrezzar and the Babylonian

Empire.[498] There is nothing strange in the fact that there

should be a certain transfusion or overlapping of the symbols, the

object not being literary congruity, but the creation of a general

impression. He is represented as a lion, because lions were prevalent

in Babylonia, and were specially prominent in Babylonian decorations.

His eagle-wings symbolise rapacity and swiftness.[499] But, according

to the narrative already given, a change had come over the spirit of

Nebuchadrezzar in his latter days. That subduing and softening by the

influence of a Divine power is represented by the plucking off of the

lion's eagle-wings, and its fall to earth. But it was not left to lie

there in impotent degradation. It is lifted up from the earth, and

humanised, and made to stand on its feet as a man, and a man's heart

is given to it.[500]

IV. The bear, which places itself upon one side, is the Median

Empire, smaller than the Chaldean, as the bear is smaller and less

formidable than the lion. The crouching on one side is obscure. It

is explained by some as implying that it was lower in exaltation

than the Babylonian Empire; by others that "it gravitated, as

regards its power, only towards the countries west of the Tigris and

Euphrates."[501] The meaning of the "three ribs in its mouth" is also

uncertain. Some regard the number three as a vague round number;

others refer it to the three countries over which the Median dominion

extended--Babylonia, Assyria, and Syria; others, less probably, to

the three chief cities. The command, "Arise, devour much flesh,"

refers to the prophecies of Median conquest,[502] and perhaps to

uncertain historical reminiscences which confused "Darius the Mede"

with Darius the son of Hystaspes. Those who explain this monster as

an emblem, not of the Median but of the Medo-Persian Empire, neglect

the plain indications of the Book itself, for the author regards the

Median and Persian Empires as distinct.[503]

V. The leopard or panther represents the Persian kingdom.[504] It has

four wings on its back, to indicate how freely and swiftly it soared

to the four quarters of the world. Its four heads indicate four

kings. There were indeed twelve or thirteen kings of Persia between

B.C. 536 and B.C. 333; but the author of the Book of Daniel, who of

course had no books of history before him, only thinks of the four

who were most prominent in popular tradition--namely (as it would

seem), Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, and Xerxes.[505] These are the only

four names which the writer knew, because they are the only ones

which occur in Scripture. It is true that the Darius of Neh. xii.

22 is not the Great Darius, son of Hystaspes, but Darius Codomannus

(B.C. 424-404). But this fact may most easily have been overlooked in

uncritical and unhistoric times. And "power was given to it," for it

was far stronger than the preceding kingdom of the Medes.

VI. The fourth monster won its chief aspect of terribleness from

the conquests of Alexander, which blazed over the East with such

irresistible force and suddenness.[506] The great Macedonian, after his

massacres at Tyre, struck into the Eastern world the intense feeling of

terror which we still can recognise in the narrative of Josephus. His

rule is therefore symbolised by a monster diverse from all the beasts

before it in its sudden leap out of obscurity, in the lightning-like

rapidity of its flash from West to East, and in its instantaneous

disintegration into four separate kingdoms. It is with one only of

those four kingdoms of the Diadochi, the one which so terribly affected

the fortunes of the Holy Land, that the writer is predominantly

concerned--namely, the empire of the Seleucid kings. It is in that

portion of the kingdom--namely, from the Euxine to the confines of

Arabia--that the ten horns arise which, we are told, symbolise ten

kings. It seems almost certain that these ten kings are intended for:--

B.C.

1. Seleucus I. (_Nicator_)[507] 312-280

2. Antiochus I. (_Soter_) 280-261

3. Antiochus II. (_Theos_) 261-246

4. Seleucus II. (_Kallinikos_) 246-226

5. Seleucus III. (_Keraunos_) 226-223

6. Antiochus III. (_Megas_) 223-187

7. Seleucus IV. (_Philopator_) 187-176

Then followed the three kings (actual or potential) who were plucked

up before the little horn: namely--

B.C.

8. Demetrius 175

9. Heliodorus 176

10. Ptolemy Philometor 181-146

Of these three who succumbed to the machinations of Antiochus

Epiphanes, or the little horn,[508] the first, Demetrius, was the

only son of Seleucus Philopator, and true heir to the crown. His

father sent him to Rome as a hostage, and released his brother

Antiochus. So far from showing gratitude for this generosity,

Antiochus, on the murder of Seleucus IV. (B.C. 175), usurped the

rights of his nephew (Dan. xi. 21).

The second, Heliodorus, seeing that Demetrius the heir was out

of the way, poisoned Seleucus Philopator, and himself usurped the

kingdom.[509]

Ptolemy Philometor was the son of Cleopatra, the sister of Seleucus

Philopator. A large party was in favour of uniting Egypt and Persia

under his rule. But Antiochus Epiphanes ignored the compact which had

made Cœle-Syria and Phœnicia the dower of Cleopatra, and not only

kept Philometor from his rights, but would have deprived him of Egypt

also but for the strenuous interposition of the Romans and their

ambassador M. Popilius Lænas.[510]

When the three horns had thus fallen before him, the little

horn--Antiochus Epiphanes--sprang into prominence. The mention of

his "eyes" seems to be a reference to his shrewdness, cunning,

and vigilance.[511] The "mouth that spoke very great things"[512]

alludes to the boastful arrogance which led him to assume the title

of Epiphanes, or "the illustrious"--which his scornful subjects

changed into Epimanes, "the mad"--and to his assumption even of

the title Theos, "the god," on some of his coins.[513] His look

"was bigger than his fellows," for he inspired the kings of Egypt

and other countries with terror. "He made war against the saints,"

with the aid of "Jason and Menelaus, those ungodly wretches," and

"prevailed against them." He "wore out the saints of the Most High,"

for he took Jerusalem by storm, plundered it, slew eighty thousand

men, women, and children, took forty thousand prisoners, and sold

as many into slavery (B.C. 170).[514] "As he entered the sanctuary

to plunder it, under the guidance of the apostate high priest

Menelaus, he uttered words of blasphemy, and he carried off all the

gold and silver he could find, including the golden table, altar of

incense, candlesticks, and vessels, and even rifled the subterraneous

vaults, so that he seized no less than eighteen hundred talents of

gold."[515] He then sacrificed swine upon the altar, and sprinkled

the whole Temple with the broth.

Further than all this, "_he thought to change times and laws_"; and

they were "_given into his hand until a time, and two times, and

a half_." For he made a determined attempt to put down the Jewish

feasts, the Sabbath, circumcision, and all the most distinctive

Jewish ordinances.[516] In B.C. 167, two years after his cruel

devastation of the city, he sent Apollonius, his chief collector of

tribute, against Jerusalem, with an army of twenty-two thousand men.

On the first Sabbath after his arrival, Apollonius sent his soldiers

to massacre all the men whom they met in the streets, and to seize

the women and children as slaves. He occupied the castle on Mount

Zion, and prevented the Jews from attending the public ordinances

of their sanctuary. Hence in June B.C. 167 the daily sacrifice

ceased, and the Jews fled for their lives from the Holy City.

Antiochus then published an edict forbidding all his subjects in

Syria and elsewhere--even the Zoroastrians in Armenia and Persia--to

worship any gods, or acknowledge any religion but his.[517] The

Jewish sacred books were burnt, and not only the Samaritans but

many Jews apostatised, while others hid themselves in mountains and

deserts.[518] He sent an old philosopher named Athenæus to instruct

the Jews in the Greek religion, and to enforce its observance. He

dedicated the Temple to Zeus Olympios, and built on the altar of

Jehovah a smaller altar for sacrifice to Zeus, to whom he must also

have erected a statue. This heathen altar was set up on Kisleu

(December) 15, and the heathen sacrifice began on Kisleu 25. All

observance of the Jewish Law was now treated as a capital crime. The

Jews were forced to sacrifice in heathen groves at heathen altars,

and to walk, crowned with ivy, in Bacchic processions. Two women who

had braved the despot's wrath by circumcising their children were

flung from the Temple battlements into the vale below.[519]

The triumph of this blasphemous and despotic savagery was arrested,

first by the irresistible force of determined martyrdom which

preferred death to unfaithfulness, and next by the armed resistance

evoked by the heroism of Mattathias, the priest at Modin. When

Apelles visited the town, and ordered the Jews to sacrifice,

Mattathias struck down with his own hand a Jew who was preparing to

obey. Then, aided by his strong heroic sons, he attacked Apelles,

slew him and his soldiers, tore down the idolatrous altar, and with

his sons and adherents fled into the wilderness, where they were

joined by many of the Jews.

The news of this revolt brought Antiochus to Palestine in B.C. 166,

and among his other atrocities he ordered the execution by torture of

the venerable scribe Eleazar, and of the pious mother with her seven

sons. In spite of all his efforts the party of the _Chasidîm_ grew

in numbers and in strength. When Mattathias died, Judas the Maccabee

became their leader, and his brother Simon their counsellor.[520]

While Antiochus was celebrating his mad and licentious festival at

Daphne, Judas inflicted a severe defeat on Apollonius, and won other

battles, which made Antiochus vow in an access of fury that he would

exterminate the nation (Dan. xi. 44). But he found himself bankrupt,

and the Persians and Armenians were revolting from him in disgust. He

therefore sent Lysias as his general to Judæa, and Lysias assembled

an immense army of forty thousand foot and seven thousand horse, to

whom Judas could only oppose six thousand men.[521] Lysias pitched

his camp at Beth-shur, south of Jerusalem. There Judas attacked him

with irresistible valour and confidence, slew five thousand of his

soldiers, and drove the rest to flight.

Lysias retired to Antioch, intending to renew the invasion next year.

Thereupon Judas and his army recaptured Jerusalem, and restored and

cleansed and reconsecrated the dilapidated and desecrated sanctuary.

He made a new shewbread-table, incense-altar, and candlestick of gold

in place of those which Antiochus had carried off, and new vessels of

gold, and a new veil before the Holiest Place. All this was completed

on Kisleu 25, B.C. 165, about the time of the winter solstice, "on

the same day of the year on which, three years before, it had been

profaned by Antiochus, and just three years and a half--'a time, two

times, and half a time'--after the city and Temple had been desolated

by Apollonius."[522] They began the day by renewing the sacrifices,

kindling the altar and the candlestick by pure fire struck by flints.

The whole law of the Temple service continued thenceforward without

interruption till the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. It was

a feast in commemoration of this dedication--called the Encænia and

"the Lights"--which Christ honoured by His presence at Jerusalem.[523]

The neighbouring nations, when they heard of this revolt of the

Jews, and its splendid success, proposed to join with Antiochus for

their extermination. But meanwhile the king, having been shamefully

repulsed in his sacrilegious attack on the Temple of Artemis at

Elymais, retired in deep chagrin to Ecbatana, in Media. It was there

that he heard of the Jewish successes and set out to chastise

the rebels. On his way he heard of the recovery of Jerusalem, the

destruction of his heathen altars, and the purification of the

Temple. The news flung him into one of those paroxysms of fury to

which he was liable, and, breathing out threatenings and slaughter,

he declared that he would turn Jerusalem into one vast cemetery for

the whole Jewish race. Suddenly smitten with a violent internal

malady, he would not stay his course, but still urged his charioteer

to the utmost speed.[524] In consequence of this the chariot was

overturned, and he was flung violently to the ground, receiving

severe injuries. He was placed in a litter, but, unable to bear the

agonies caused by its motion, he stopped at Tabæ, in the mountains of

Parætacene, on the borders of Persia and Babylonia, where he died,

B.C. 164, in very evil case, half mad with the furies of a remorseful

conscience.[525] The Jewish historians say that, before his death,

he repented, acknowledged the crimes he had committed against the

Jews, and vowed that he would repair them if he survived. The stories

of his death resemble those of the deaths of Herod, of Galerius, of

Philip II., and of other bitter persecutors of the saints of God.

Judas the Maccabee, who had overthrown his power in Palestine, died

at Eleasa in B.C. 161, after a series of brilliant victories.

Such were the fortunes of the king whom the writer shadows forth

under the emblem of the little horn with human eyes and a mouth

which spake blasphemies, whose power was to be made transitory, and

to be annihilated and destroyed unto the end.[526] And when this wild

beast was slain, and its body given to the burning fire, the rest of

the beasts were indeed to be deprived of their splendid dominions,

but a respite of life is given them, and they are suffered to endure

for a time and a period.[527]

But the eternal life, and the imperishable dominion, which were

denied to them, are given to another in the epiphany of the Ancient

of Days. The vision of the seer is one of a great scene of judgment.

Thrones are set for the heavenly assessors, and the Almighty appears

in snow-white raiment, and on His chariot-throne of burning flame

which flashes round Him like a vast photosphere.[528] The books of

everlasting record are opened before the glittering faces of the

myriads of saints who accompany Him, and the fiery doom is passed on

the monstrous world-powers who would fain usurp His authority.[529]

But who is the "one even as a son of man," who "comes with the clouds

of heaven," and who "is brought before the Ancient of Days,"[530] to

whom is given the imperishable dominion? That he is not an angel

appears from the fact that he seems to be separate from all the ten

thousand times ten thousand who stand around the cherubic chariot. He

is not a man, but something more. In this respect he resembles the

angels described in Dan. viii. 15, x. 16-18. He has "the appearance

of a man," and is "like the similitude of the sons of men."[531]

We should naturally answer, in accordance with the multitude of

ancient and modern commentators both Jewish and Christian, that

the Messiah is intended;[532] and, indeed, our Lord alludes to the

prophecy in Matt. xxvi. 64. That the vision is meant to indicate the

establishment of the Messianic theocracy cannot be doubted. But if

we follow the interpretation given by the angel himself in answer

to Daniel's entreaty, the personality of the Messiah seems to be at

least somewhat subordinate or indistinct. For the interpretation,

without mentioning any person, seems to point only to the saints of

Israel who are to inherit and maintain that Divine kingdom which has

been already thrice asserted and prophesied. It is the "holy ones"

(_Qaddîshîn_), "the holy ones of the Most High" (_Qaddîshî Elîonîn_),

upon whom the never-ending sovereignty is conferred;[533] and who

these are cannot be misunderstood, for they are the very same as

those against whom the little horn has been engaged in war.[534]

The Messianic kingdom is here predominantly represented as the

spiritual supremacy of the chosen people. Neither here, nor in ii.

44, nor in xii. 3, does the writer separately indicate any Davidic

king, or priest upon his throne, as had been already done by so many

previous prophets.[535] This vision does not seem to have brought

into prominence the rule of any Divinely Incarnate Christ over the

kingdom of the Highest. In this respect the interpretation of the

"one even as a son of man" comes upon us as a surprise, and seems to

indicate that the true interpretation of that element of the vision

is that the kingdom of the saints is there personified; so that

as wild beasts were appropriate emblems of the world-powers, the

reasonableness and sanctity of the saintly theocracy are indicated by

a human form, which has its origin in the clouds of heaven, not in

the miry and troubled sea. This is the view of the Christian father

Ephræm Syrus, as well as of the Jewish exegete Abn Ezra; and it is

supported by the fact that in other apocryphal books of the later

epoch, as in the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Jubilees, the

Messianic hope is concentrated in the conception that the holy nation

is to have the dominance over the Gentiles. At any rate, it seems

that, if truth is to guide us rather than theological prepossession,

we must take the significance of the writer, not from the emblems of

the vision, but from the divinely imparted interpretation of it; and

there the figure of "one as a son of man" is persistently (vv. 18,

22, 27) explained to stand, not for the Christ Himself, but for "the

holy ones of the Most High,"[536] whose dominion Christ's coming

should inaugurate and secure.

The chapter closes with the words: "Here is the end of the matter. As

for me, Daniel, my thoughts much troubled me, and my brightness was

changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart."

FOOTNOTES:

[487] Except in the heading of chap. x.

[488] In the opinion of Lagarde and others this chapter--which is

not noticed by Josephus, and which Meinhold thinks cannot have been

written by the author of chap. ii., since it says nothing of the

sufferings or deliverance of Israel--did not belong to the original

form of the Book. Lagarde thinks that it was written A.D. 69, after

the persecution of the Christians by Nero.

[489] St. Ephræm Syrus says, "The sea is the world." Isa. xvii. 12,

xxvii. 1, xxxii. 2. But compare Dan. vii. 17; Ezek. xxix. 3; Rev.

xiii. 1, xvii. 1-8, xxi. 1.

[490] In the vision of the colossus in ii. 41-43 stress is laid on

the division of the fourth empire into stronger and weaker elements

(iron and clay). That point is here passed over.

[491] A.V., "the thrones were cast down."

[492] In ii. 35, 44, the four empires are represented as finally

destroyed.

[493] A.V. marg., "high ones"--_i.e._, things or places.

[494] Not kingdoms, as in viii. 8.

[495] Comp. Rev. xii. 14; Luke iv. 25; James v. 17.

[496] Isa. xxvii. 1, li. 9; Ezek. xxix. 3, xxxii. 2.

[497] Comp. Job xxxviii. 16, 17; Isa. viii. 7, xvii. 12.

[498] Comp. Dan. ii. 38. Jeremiah had likened Nebuchadrezzar both to

the lion (iv. 7, xlix. 19, etc.) and to the eagle (xlviii. 40, xlix.

22). Ezekiel had compared the king (xvii. 3), and Habakkuk his armies

(i. 8), as also Jeremiah (iv. 13; Lam. iv. 19), to the eagle (Pusey, p.

690). See too Layard, _Nin. and Bab._, ii. 460. For other beast-symbols

see Isa. xxvii. 1, li. 9; Ezek. xxix. 3; Psalm lxxiv. 13.

[499] Comp. Jer. iv. 7, 13, xlix. 16; Ezek. xvii. 3, 12; Hab. i. 8;

Lam. iv. 19.

[500] The use of _enôsh_--not _eesh_--indicates chastening and weakness.

[501] Ewald.

[502] Isa. xiii. 17; Jer. li. 11, 28. Aristotle, _H. N._, viii.

5, calls the bear πάμφαγος, "all-devouring." A bear appears as a

dream-symbol in an Assyrian book of auguries (Lenormant, _Magie_, 492).

[503] Dan. v. 28, 31, vi. 8, 12, 15, 28, viii. 20, ix. 1, xi. 1.

[504] The composite beast of Rev. xiii. 2 combines leopard, bear, and

lion.

[505] Comp. viii. 4-8.

[506] Battle of the Granicus, B.C. 334; Battle of Issus, 333; Siege

of Tyre, 332; Battle of Arbela, 331; Death of Darius, 330. Alexander

died B.C. 323.

[507] This was the interpretation given by the great father Ephræm

Syrus in the first century. Hitzig, Kuenen, and others count from

Alexander the Great, and omit Ptolemy Philometor.

[508] Dan. xi. 21.

[509] Appian, _Syr._, 45; Liv., xli. 24. The story of his attempt to

rob the Temple at Jerusalem, rendered so famous by the great picture

of Raphael in the Vatican _stanze_, is not mentioned by Josephus,

but only in 2 Macc. iii. 24-40. In 4 Macc. it is told, without the

miracle, of Apollonius. There can be little doubt that something of

the kind happened, but it was perhaps due to an imposture of the

Jewish high priest.

[510] Porphyry interpreted the three kings who succumbed to the

little horn to be Ptolemy Philometor, Ptolemy Euergetes II., and

Artaxias, King of Armenia. The critics who begin the ten kings with

Alexander the Great count Seleucus IV. (Philopator) as one of the

three who were supplanted by Antiochus. Von Gutschmid counts as

one of the three a younger brother of Demetrius, said to have been

murdered by Antiochus (Müller, _Fr. Hist. Græc._, iv. 558).

[511] Comp. viii. 23.

[512] Comp. λαλεῖν μέγαλα (Rev. xiii. 5); Hom., _Od._, xvi. 243.

[513] Comp. xi. 36.

[514] Jos., _B. J._, I. i. 2, VI. x. 1. In _Antt._, XII. v. 3,

Josephus says he took Jerusalem by stratagem.

[515] Jahn, _Hebr. Commonwealth_, § xciv.; Ewald, _Hist. of Isr._, v.

293-300.

[516] 2 Macc. iv. 9-15: "The priests had no courage to serve any more

at the altar, but despising the Temple, and neglecting the sacrifices,

hastened to be partakers of the unlawful allowance in the place of

exercise, after the game of Discus ... not setting by the honours of

their fathers, but liking the glory of the Grecians best of all."

[517] 1 Macc. i. 29-40; 2 Macc. v. 24-26; Jos., _Antt._, XII. v. 4.

Comp. Dan. xi. 30, 31. See Schürer, i. 155 ff.

[518] Jerome, _Comm. in Dan._, viii., ix.; Tac., _Hist._, v. 8; 1

Macc. i. 41-53; 2 Macc. v. 27, vi. 2; Jos., _Antt._, XII. v. 4.

[519] 1 Macc. ii. 41-64, iv. 54; 2 Macc. vi. 1-9, x. 5; Jos.,

_Antt._, XII. v. 4; Dan. xi. 31.

[520] Maccabee perhaps means "the Hammerer" (comp. the names Charles

_Martel_ and _Malleus hæreticorum_). Simeon was called _Tadshî_, "he

increases" (? Gk., Θασσίς).

[521] The numbers vary in the records.

[522] Prideaux, _Connection_, ii. 212. Comp. Rev. xii. 14, xi. 2, 3.

[523] John x. 22.

[524] On the death of Antiochus see 1 Macc. vi. 8; 2 Macc. ix.;

Polybius, xxxi. 11; Jos., _Antt._, XII. ix. 1, 2.

[525] Polybius, _De Virt. et Vit._, Exc. Vales, p. 144; Q. Curtius,

v. 13; Strabo, xi. 522; Appian, _Syriaca_, xlvi. 80; 1 Macc. vi.; 2

Macc. ix.; Jos., _Antt._, XII. ix. 1; Prideaux, ii. 217; Jahn, _Hebr.

Commonwealth_ § xcvi.

[526] Dan. vii. 26.

[527] Dan. vii. 12. This is only explicable at all--and then not

clearly--on the supposition that the fourth beast represents

Alexander and the Diadochi. See even Pusey, p. 78.

[528] Ezek. i. 26; Psalm l. 3. Comp. the adaptation of this vision in

Enoch xlvi. 1-3.

[529] Isa. l. 11, lx. 10-12, lxvi. 24, Joel iii. 1, 2. See Rev. i.

13. In the Gospels it is not "a son of man," but generally ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ

ἀνθρώπου. Comp. Matt. xvi. 13, xxiv. 30; John xii. 34; Acts vii. 56;

Justin, _Dial. c. Tryph._, 31.

[530] Comp. Mark xiv. 62; Rev. i. 7; Hom., _Il._, v. 867, ὁμοῦ

νεφέεσσιν.

[531] Comp. Ezek. i. 26.

[532] It is so understood by the Book of Enoch; the Talmud

(_Sanhedrin_, f. 98, 1); the early father Justin Martyr, _Dial. c.

Tryph._, 31, etc. Some of the Jewish commentators (_e.g._, Abn Ezra)

understood it of the people of God, and so Hofmann, Hitzig, Meinhold,

etc. See Behrmann, _Dan._, p. 48.

[533] Dan. iv. 3, 34, vi. 26. See Schürer, ii. 247; Wellhausen, _Die

Pharis. u. Sadd._, 24 ff.

[534] Dan. vii. 16, 22, 23, 27.

[535] Zech. ix. 9.

[536] See Schürer, ii. 138-187, "The Messianic Hope": he refers to

Ecclus. xxxii. 18, 19, xxxiii. 1-11, xl. 13, l. 24; Judith xvi. 12;

2 Macc. ii. 18; Baruch ii. 27-35; Tobit xiii, 11-18; Wisdom iii.

8, v. 1, etc. The Messianic King appears more distinctly in _Orac.

Sibyll._, iii.; in parts of the Book of Enoch (of which, however,

xlv.-lvii. are of unknown date); and the Psalms of Solomon. In Philo

we seem to have traces of the King as well as of the kingdom. See

Drummond, _The Jewish Messiah_, pp. 196 ff.; Stanton, _The Jewish and

Christian Messiah_, pp. 109-118.

CHAPTER II

_THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT_

This vision is dated as having occurred in the third year of

Belshazzar; but it is not easy to see the significance of the date,

since it is almost exclusively occupied with the establishment of the

Greek Empire, its dissolution into the kingdoms of the Diadochi, and

the godless despotism of King Antiochus Epiphanes.

The seer imagines himself to be in the palace of Shushan: "As I

beheld I was in the castle of Shushan."[537] It has been supposed by

some that Daniel was really there upon some business connected with

the kingdom of Babylon. But this view creates a needless difficulty.

Shushan, which the Greeks called Susa, and the Persians Shush (now

Shushter), "the city of the lily," was "the palace" or fortress

(_bîrah_[538]) of the Achæmenid kings of Persia, and it is most

unlikely that a chief officer of the kingdom of Babylon should have

been there in the third year of the imaginary King Belshazzar, just

when Cyrus was on the eve of capturing Babylon without a blow. If

Belshazzar is some dim reflection of the son of Nabunaid (though

he never reigned), Shushan was not then subject to the King of

Babylonia. But the ideal presence of the prophet there, in vision, is

analogous to the presence of the exile Ezekiel in Jerusalem (Ezek.

xl. 1); and these transferences of the prophets to the scenes of

their operation were sometimes even regarded as bodily, as in the

legend of Habakkuk taken to the lions' den to support Daniel.

Shushan is described as being in the province of Elam or Elymais,

which may be here used as a general designation of the district in

which Susiana was included. The prophet imagines himself as standing

by the river-basin (_oobâl_[539]) of the Ulai, which shows that we

must take the words "in the castle of Shushan" in an ideal sense;

for, as Ewald says, "it is only in a dream that images and places are

changed so rapidly." The Ulai is the river called by the Greeks the

Eulæus, now the Karûn.[540]

Shushan is said by Pliny and Arrian to have been on the river Eulæus,

and by Herodotus to have been on the banks of

"Choaspes, amber stream,

The drink of none but kings."

It seems now to have been proved that the Ulai was merely a branch of

the Choaspes or Kerkhah.[541]

Lifting up his eyes, Daniel sees a ram standing eastward of the

river-basin. It has two lofty horns, the loftier of the two being the

later in origin. It butts westward, northward, and southward, and

does great things.[542] But in the midst of its successes a he-goat,

with a conspicuous horn between its eyes,[543] comes from the West

so swiftly over the face of all the earth that it scarcely seems

even to touch the ground,[544] and runs upon the ram in the fury of

his strength,[545] conquering and trampling upon him, and smashing

in pieces his two horns. But his impetuosity was short-lived, for

the great horn was speedily broken, and four others[546] rose in its

place towards the four winds of heaven. Out of these four horns shot

up a puny horn,[547] which grew exceedingly great towards the South,

and towards the East, and towards "the Glory"--_i.e._, towards the

Holy Land.[548] It became great even to the host of heaven, and cast

down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and trampled

on them.[549] He even behaved proudly against the prince of the

host, took away from him[550] "the daily" (sacrifice), polluted the

dismantled sanctuary with sacrilegious arms,[551] and cast the truth

to the ground and prospered. Then "one holy one called to another

and asked, For how long is the vision of the daily [sacrifice], and

the horrible sacrilege, that thus both the sanctuary and host are

surrendered to be trampled underfoot?"[552] And the answer is, "Until

two thousand three hundred _'erebh-bôqer_, 'evening-morning'; then

will the sanctuary be justified."

Daniel sought to understand the vision, and immediately there stood

before him one in the semblance of a man, and he hears the distant

voice of some one[553] standing between the Ulai--_i.e._, between its

two banks,[554] or perhaps between its two branches, the Eulæus and

the Choaspes--who called aloud to "Gabriel." The archangel Gabriel

is here first mentioned in Scripture.[555] "Gabriel," cried the

voice, "explain to him what he has seen." So Gabriel came and stood

beside him; but he was terrified, and fell on his face. "Observe,

thou son of man,"[556] said the angel to him; "for unto the time of

the end is the vision." But since Daniel still lay prostrate on his

face, and sank into a swoon, the angel touched him, and raised him

up, and said that the great wrath was only for a fixed time, and he

would tell him what would happen at the end of it.

The two-horned ram, he said, the _Baal-keranaîm_, or "lord of two

horns," represents the King of Media and Persia; the shaggy goat is

the Empire of Greece; and the great horn is its first king--Alexander

the Great.[557]

The four horns rising out of the broken great horn are four inferior

kingdoms. In one of these, sacrilege would culminate in the person of

a king of bold face,[558] and skilled in cunning, who would become

powerful, though not by his own strength.[559] He would prosper and

destroy mighty men and the people of the holy ones,[560] and deceit

would succeed by his double-dealing. He would contend against the

Prince of princes,[561] and yet without a hand would he be broken in

pieces.

Such is the vision and its interpretation; and though there is here

and there a difficulty in the details and translation, and though

there is a necessary crudeness in the emblematic imagery, the general

significance of the whole is perfectly clear.

The scene of the vision is ideally placed in Shushan, because the

Jews regarded it as the royal capital of the Persian dominion, and

the dream begins with the overthrow of the Medo-Persian Empire.[562]

The ram is a natural symbol of power and strength, as in Isa. lx. 7.

The two horns represent the two divisions of the empire, of which the

later--the Persian--is the loftier and the stronger. It is regarded as

being already the lord of the East, but it extends its conquests by

butting westward over the Tigris into Europe, and southwards to Egypt

and Africa, and northwards towards Scythia, with magnificent success.

The he-goat is Greece.[563] Its one great horn represents "the great

Emathian conqueror."[564] So swift was the career of Alexander's

conquests, that the goat seems to speed along without so much as

touching the ground.[565] With irresistible fury, in the great

battles of the Granicus (B.C. 334), Issus (B.C. 333), and Arbela

(B.C. 331), he stamps to pieces the power of Persia and of its

king, Darius Codomannus.[566] In this short space of time Alexander

conquers Syria, Phœnicia, Cyprus, Tyre, Gaza, Egypt, Babylonia,

Persia, Media, Hyrcania, Aria, and Arachosia. In B.C. 330 Darius was

murdered by Bessus, and Alexander became lord of his kingdom. In B.C.

329 the Greek King conquered Bactria, crossed the Oxus and Jaxartes,

and defeated the Scythians. In B.C. 328 he conquered Sogdiana. In

B.C. 327 and 326 he crossed the Indus, Hydaspes, and Akesines,

subdued Northern and Western India, and--compelled by the discontent

of his troops to pause in his career of victory--sailed down the

Hydaspes and Indus to the Ocean. He then returned by land through

Gedrosia, Karmania, Persia, and Susiana to Babylon.

There the great horn is suddenly broken without hand.[567] Alexander

in B.C. 323, after a reign of twelve years and eight months, died

as a fool dieth, of a fever brought on by fatigue, exposure,

drunkenness, and debauchery. He was only thirty-two years old.

The dismemberment of his empire immediately followed. In B.C. 322 its

vast extent was divided among his principal generals. Twenty-two years

of war ensued; and in B.C. 301, after the defeat of Antigonus and his

son Demetrius at the Battle of Ipsus, four horns are visible in the

place of one. The battle was won by the confederacy of Cassander,

Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus, and they founded four kingdoms.

Cassander ruled in Greece and Macedonia; Lysimachus in Asia Minor;

Ptolemy in Egypt, Cœle-Syria, and Palestine; Seleucus in Upper Asia.

With one only of the four kingdoms, and with one only of its kings,

is the vision further concerned--with the kingdom of the Seleucidæ,

and with the eighth king of the dynasty, Antiochus Epiphanes. In

this chapter, however, a brief sketch only of him is furnished. Many

details of the minutest kind are subsequently added.

He is called "a puny horn," because, in his youth, no one could

have anticipated his future greatness. He was only a younger son

of Antiochus III. (the Great). When Antiochus III. was defeated in

the Battle of Magnesia under Mount Sipylus (B.C. 190), his loss was

terrible. Fifty thousand foot and four thousand horse were slain on

the battlefield, and fourteen hundred were taken prisoners. He was

forced to make peace with the Romans, and to give them hostages, one

of whom was Antiochus the Younger, brother of Seleucus, who was heir

to the throne. Antiochus for thirteen years languished miserably as a

hostage at Rome. His father, Antiochus the Great, was either slain in

B.C. 187 by the people of Elymais, after his sacrilegious plundering

of the Temple of Jupiter-Belus;[568] or murdered by some of his

own attendants whom he had beaten during a fit of drunkenness.[569]

Seleucus Philopator succeeded him, and after having reigned for

thirteen years, wished to see his brother Antiochus again. He

therefore sent his son Demetrius in exchange for him, perhaps

desiring that the boy, who was then twelve years old, should enjoy

the advantage of a Roman education, or thinking that Antiochus would

be of more use to him in his designs against Ptolemy Philometor,

the child-king of Egypt. When Demetrius was on his way to Rome, and

Antiochus had not yet reached Antioch, Heliodorus the treasurer

seized the opportunity to poison Seleucus and usurp the crown.

The chances, therefore, of Antiochus seemed very forlorn. But he

was a man of ability, though with a taint of folly and madness

in his veins. By allying himself with Eumenes, King of Pergamum,

as we shall see hereafter, he suppressed Heliodorus, secured the

kingdom, and "becoming very great," though only by fraud, cruelty,

and stratagem, assumed the title of Epiphanes "the Illustrious." He

extended his power "towards the South" by intriguing and warring

against Egypt and his young nephew, Ptolemy Philometor;[570]

and "towards the Sunrising" by his successes in the direction

of Media and Persia;[571] and towards "the Glory" or "Ornament"

(_hatstsebî_)--_i.e._, the Holy Land.[572] Inflated with insolence,

he now set himself against the stars, the host of heaven--_i.e._,

against the chosen people of God and their leaders. He cast down and

trampled on them,[573] and defied the Prince of the host; for he

"Not e'en against the Holy One of heaven

Refrained his tongue blasphémous."

His chief enormity was the abolition of "the daily"

(_tamîd_)--_i.e._, the sacrifice daily offered in the Temple; and the

desecration of the sanctuary itself by violence and sacrilege, which

will be more fully set forth in the next chapters. He also seized and

destroyed the sacred books of the Jews. As he forbade the reading of

the Law--of which the daily lesson was called the _Parashah_--there

began from this time the custom of selecting a lesson from the

Prophets, which was called the _Haphtarah_.[574]

It was natural to make one of the holy ones, who are supposed to

witness this horrible iniquity,[575] inquire how long it was to be

permitted. The enigmatic answer is, "Until an evening-morning two

thousand three hundred."

In the further explanation given to Daniel by Gabriel a few more

touches are added.

Antiochus Epiphanes is described as a king "bold of visage, and

skilled in enigmas." His boldness is sufficiently illustrated by

his many campaigns and battles, and his braggart insolence has been

already alluded to in vii. 8. His skill in enigmas is illustrated

by his dark and tortuous diplomacy, which was exhibited in all his

proceedings,[576] and especially in the whole of his dealings with

Egypt, in which country he desired to usurp the throne from his

young nephew Ptolemy Philometor. The statement that "he will have

mighty strength, but not by his own strength," may either mean that

his transient prosperity was due only to the permission of God, or

that his successes were won rather by cunning than by prowess. After

an allusion to his cruel persecution of the holy people, Gabriel

adds that "without a hand shall he be broken in pieces"; in other

words, his retribution and destruction shall be due to no human

intervention, but will come from God Himself.[577]

Daniel is bidden to hide the vision for many days--a sentence which

is due to the literary plan of the Book; and he is assured that the

vision concerning the "evening-morning" was true. He adds that the

vision exhausted and almost annihilated him; but, afterwards, he

arose and did the king's business. He was silent about the vision,

for neither he nor any one else understood it.[578] Of course, had

the real date of the chapter been in the reign of Belshazzar, it was

wholly impossible that either the seer or any one else should have

been able to attach any significance to it.[579]

Emphasis is evidently attached to the "two thousand three hundred

evening-morning" during which the desolation of the sanctuary is to

continue.

What does the phrase "evening-morning" (_'erebh-bôqer_) mean?

In ver. 26 it is called "the vision concerning the evening and the

morning."

Does "evening-morning" mean a _whole_ day, like the Greek νυχθήμερον,

or _half_ a day? The expression is doubly perplexing. If the writer

meant "days," why does he not say "_days_," as in xii. 11, 12?[580]

And why, in any case, does he here use the solecism _'erebh-bôqer_

(_Abendmorgen_), and not, as in ver. 26, "evening _and_ morning"?

Does the expression mean two thousand three hundred days? or eleven

hundred and fifty days?

It is a natural supposition that the time is meant to correspond with

the three years and a half ("a time, two times, and half a time")

of vii. 25. But here again all certainty of detail is precluded by

our ignorance as to the exact length of years by which the writer

reckoned; and how he treated the month _Ve-adar_, a month of thirty

days, which was intercalated once in every six years.

Supposing that he allowed an intercalary fifteen days for three and

a half years, and took the Babylonian reckoning of twelve months

of thirty days, then three and a half years gives us twelve hundred

and seventy-five days, or, omitting any allowance for intercalation,

twelve hundred and sixty days.

If, then, "two thousand three hundred evening-morning" means two

thousand three hundred _half_ days, we have _one hundred and ten days

too many_ for the three and a half years.

And if the phrase means two thousand three hundred _full_ days, that

gives us (counting thirty intercalary days for _Ve-adar_) too little

for seven years by two hundred and fifty days. Some see in this a

mystic intimation that the period of chastisement shall for the elect's

sake be shortened.[581] Some commentators reckon seven years roughly,

from the elevation of Menelaus to the high-priesthood (Kisleu, B.C.

168: 2 Macc. v. 11) to the victory of Judas Maccabæus over Nicanor at

Adasa, March, B.C. 161 (1 Macc. vii. 25-50; 2 Macc. xv. 20-35).

In neither case do the calculations agree with the twelve hundred and

ninety or the thirteen hundred and thirty-five days of xii. 12, 13.

Entire volumes of tedious and wholly inconclusive comment have been

written on these combinations, but by no reasonable supposition

can we arrive at close accuracy. Strict chronological accuracy was

difficult of attainment in those days, and was never a matter about

which the Jews, in particular, greatly troubled themselves. We do

not know either the _terminus a quo_ from which or the _terminus ad

quem_ to which the writer reckoned. All that can be said is that it

is perfectly impossible for us to identify or exactly equiparate the

three and a half years (vii. 25), the "two thousand three hundred

evening-morning" (viii. 14), the seventy-two weeks (ix. 26), and the

twelve hundred and ninety days (xii. 11). Yet all those dates have

this point of resemblance about them, that they very roughly indicate

a space of _about_ three and a half years (more or less) as the time

during which the daily sacrifice should cease, and the Temple be

polluted and desolate.[582]

Turning now to the dates, we know that Judas the Maccabee

cleansed[583] ("justified" or "vindicated," viii. 14) the Temple on

Kisleu 25 (December 25th, B.C. 165). If we reckon back two thousand

three hundred _full_ days from this date, it brings us to B.C. 171,

in which Menelaus, who bribed Antiochus to appoint him high priest,

robbed the Temple of some of its treasures, and procured the murder

of the high priest Onias III. In this year Antiochus sacrificed a

great sow on the altar of burnt offerings, and sprinkled its broth

over the sacred building. These crimes provoked the revolt of the

Jews, in which they killed Lysimachus, governor of Syria, and brought

on themselves a heavy retribution.[584]

If we reckon back two thousand three hundred _half_-days, eleven

hundred and fifty _whole_ days, we must go back three years and

seventy days, but we cannot tell what exact event the writer had

in mind as the starting-point of his calculations. The actual time

which elapsed from the final defilement of the Temple by Apollonius,

the general of Antiochus, in B.C. 168, till its repurification was

roughly three years. Perhaps, however--for all is uncertain--the

writer reckoned from the earliest steps taken, or contemplated, by

Antiochus for the suppression of Judaism. The purification of the

Temple did not end the time of persecution, which was to continue,

first, for one hundred and forty days longer, and then forty-five

days more (xii. 11, 12). It is clear from this that the writer

reckoned the beginning and the end of troubles from different epochs

which we have no longer sufficient data to discover.

It must, however, be borne in mind that no minute certainty about the

exact dates is attainable. Many authorities, from Prideaux[585] down to

Schürer,[586] place the desecration of the Temple towards the close of

B.C. 168. Kuenen sees reason to place it a year later. Our authorities

for this period of history are numerous, but they are fragmentary,

abbreviated, and often inexact. Fortunately, so far as we are able to

see, no very important lesson is lost by our inability to furnish an

undoubted or a rigidly scientific explanation of the minuter details.

APPROXIMATE DATES, AS INFERRED BY CORNILL

AND OTHERS[587]

B.C.

Jeremiah's prophecy in Jer. xxv. 12 605

Jeremiah's prophecy in Jer. xxix. 10 594

Destruction of the Temple 586 or 588

Return of the Jewish exiles 537

Decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezra vii. 1) 458

Second decree (Neh. ii. 1) 445

Accession of Antiochus Epiphanes (August, Clinton) 175

Usurpation of the high-priesthood by Jason 175

Jason displaced by Menelaus 172(?)

Murder of Onias III. (June) 171

Apollonius defiles the Temple 168

War of independence 166

Purification of the Temple by Judas the Maccabee (December) 165

Death of Antiochus 163

FOOTNOTES:

[537] Ezra vi. 2; Neh. i. 1; Herod., v. 49; Polyb., v. 48. A supposed

tomb of Daniel has long been revered at Shushan.

[538] Pers., _baru_; Skr., _bura_; Assyr., _birtu_; Gk., βάρις. Comp.

Æsch., _Pers._, 554; Herod., ii. 96.

[539] Theodot., οὐβάλ; Ewald, _Stromgebiet_--a place where several

rivers meet. The Jews prayed on river-banks (Acts xvi. 13), and

Ezekiel had seen his vision on the Chebar (Ezek. i. 1, iii. 15,

etc.); but this Ulai is here mentioned because the palace stood on

its bank. Both the LXX. and Theodotion omit the word Ulai.

[540] "Susianam ab Elymaide disterminat amnis Eulæus" (Plin., _H.

N._, vi. 27).

[541] See Loftus, _Chaldæa_, p. 346, who visited Shush in 1854;

Herzog, _R. E._, _s.v._ "Susa." A tile was found by Layard at

Kuyunjik representing a large city between two rivers. It probably

represents Susa. Loftus says that the city stood between the Choaspes

and the Kopratas (now the Dizful).

[542] The Latin word for "to butt" is _arietare_, from _aries_, "a

ram." It butts in three directions (comp. Dan. vii. 5). Its conquests

in the East were apart from the writer's purpose. Crœsus called the

Persians ὑβρισταί, and Æschylus ὑπέρκομποι ἄγαν, _Pers._, 795 (Stuart).

For horns as the symbol of strength see Amos vi. 13; Psalm lxxv. 5.

[543] Unicorns are often represented on Assyrio-Babylonian sculptures.

[544] 1 Macc. i. 1-3; Isa. xli. 2; Hosea xiii. 7, 8; Hab. i. 6.

[545] Fury (_chemah_), "heat," "violence"--also of _deadly_ venom

(Deut. xxxii. 24).

[546] A.V., "four _notable_ horns"; but the word _chazoth_ means

literally "a sight of four"--_i.e._, "four _other_ horns" (comp. ver.

8). Grätz reads _achēroth_; LXX., ἕτερα τέσσαρα (comp. xi. 4).

[547] Lit. "out of littleness."

[548] _Hatstsebî_. Comp. xi. 45; Ezek. xx. 6; Jer. iii. 19; Zech.

vii. 14; Psalm cvi. 24. The Rabbis make the word mean "the gazelle"

for fanciful reasons (_Taanîth_, 69, _a_).

[549] The physical image implies the war against the spiritual host

of heaven, the holy people with their leaders. See 1 Macc. i. 24-30;

2 Macc. ix. 10. The _Tsebaoth_ mean primarily the stars and angels,

but next the Israelites (Exod. vii. 4).

[550] So in the Hebrew margin (_Q'rî_), followed by Theodoret and

Ewald; but in the text (_Kethîbh_) it is, "by him the daily was

abolished"; and with this reading the Peshito and Vulgate agree.

_Hattamîd_, "the daily" sacrifice; LXX., ἐνδελεχισμός; Numb. xxviii.

3; 1 Macc. i. 39, 45, iii. 45.

[551] The Hebrew is here corrupt. The R.V. renders it, "And the host

was given over _to it_, together with the continual _burnt offering_

through transgression; and it cast down truth to the ground, and it

did _its pleasure_ and prospered."

[552] Dan. viii. 13. I follow Ewald in this difficult verse, and with

him Von Lengerke and Hitzig substantially agree; but the text is again

corrupt, as appears also in the LXX. It would be useless here to enter

into minute philological criticism. "How long?" (comp. Isa. vi. 11).

[553] LXX., φελμωνί; _nescio quis_ (Vulg., _viri_).

[554] Comp. for the expression xii. 6.

[555] We find no names in Gen. xxxii. 30; Judg. xiii. 18. For the

presence of angels at the vision comp. Zech. i. 9, 13, etc. Gabriel

means "man of God." In Tobit iii. 17 Raphael is mentioned; in 2

Esdras v. 20, Uriel. This is the first mention of any angel's name.

Michael is the highest archangel (Weber, _System._, 162 ff.), and in

Jewish angelology Gabriel is identified with the Holy Spirit (_Ruach

Haqqodesh_). As such he appears in the Qurân, ii. 91 (Behrmann).

[556] Ben-Adam (Ezek. ii. 1).

[557] Comp. Isa. xiv. 9: "All the great goats of the earth." A ram is

a natural symbol for a chieftain.--Hom., _Il._, xiii. 491-493; Cic.,

_De Div._, i. 22; Plut., _Sulla_, c. 27; Jer. l. 8; Ezek. xxxiv. 17;

Zech. x. 3, etc. See Vaux, _Persia_, p. 72.

[558] "Strength of face" (LXX., ἀναιδὴς προσώπῳ; Deut. xxviii. 50,

etc.). "Understanding dark sentences" (Judg. xiv. 12; Ezek. xvii. 2:

comp. v. 12).

[559] The meaning is uncertain. It may mean (1) that he is only

strong by God's permission; or (2) only by cunning, not by strength.

[560] Comp. 2 Macc. iv. 9-15: "The priests had no courage to serve

any more at the altar, but despising the Temple, and neglecting the

sacrifices, hastened to be partakers of the unlawful allowance in the

place of exercise ... not setting by the honours of their fathers,

but liking the glory of the Grecians best of all."

[561] Not merely the angelic prince of the host (Josh. v. 14), but

God--"Lord of lords."

[562] Comp. Esther i. 2. Though the vision took place under Babylon,

the seer is strangely unconcerned with the present, or with the fate

of the Babylonian Empire.

[563] It is said to be the national emblem of Macedonia.

[564] He is called "the King of Javan"--_i.e._, of the Ionians.

[565] Isa. v. 26-29. Comp. 1 Macc. i. 3.

[566] The _fury_ of the he-goat represents the vengeance cherished by

the Greeks against Persia since the old days of Marathon, Thermopylæ,

Salamis, Platæa, and Mycale. Persia had invaded Greece under

Mardonius (B.C. 492), under Datis and Artaphernes (B.C. 490), and

under Xerxes (B.C. 480).

[567] 1 Macc. vi. 1-16; 2 Macc. ix. 9; Job vii. 6; Prov. xxvi. 20.

[568] So Diodorus Siculus (Exc. Vales., p. 293); Justin, xxxii. 2;

Jer. _in Dan._, xi.; Strabo, xvi. 744.

[569] Aurel. Vict., _De Virr. Illustr._, c. liv.

[570] He conquered Egypt B.C. 170 (1 Macc. i. 17-20).

[571] See 1 Macc. iii. 29-37.

[572] Comp. Ezek. xx. 6, "which is the glory of all lands"; Psalm l.

2; Lam. ii. 15.

[573] 1 Macc. i. 24-30. Dr. Pusey endeavours, without even the

smallest success, to show that many things said of Antiochus in

this book do not apply to him. The argument is based on the fact

that the characteristics of Antiochus--who was a man of versatile

impulses--are somewhat differently described by different authors;

but here we have the aspect he presented to a few who regarded him as

the deadliest of tyrants and persecutors.

[574] See Hamburger, ii. 334 (_s.v._ "Haftara").

[575] Comp. ὀργὴ μεγάλη (1 Macc. i. 64; Isa. x. 5, 25, xxvi. 20; Jer.

l. 5; Rom. ii. 5, etc.).

[576] Comp. xi. 21.

[577] Comp. ii. 34, xi. 45. Antiochus died of a long and terrible

illness in Persia. Polybius (xxxi. 11) describes his sickness by the

word δαιμονήσας. Arrian (_Syriaca_, 66) says φθίνων ἐτελεύτησε. In

1 Macc. vi. 8-16 he dies confessing his sins against the Jews, but

there is another story in 2 Macc. ix. 4-28.

[578] Ver. 27, "I was gone" (or, "came to an end") "whole days."

With this ἔκστασις comp. ii. 1, vii. 28; Exod. xxxiii. 20; Isa. vi.

5; Luke ix. 32; Acts ix. 4, etc. Comp. xii. 8; Jer. xxxii. 14, and

(_contra_) Rev. xxii. 10.

[579] In ver. 26 the R.V. renders "it belongeth to many days _to come_."

[580] Comp. Gen. i. 5; 2 Cor. xi. 25. The word _tamîd_ includes both

the morning and evening sacrifice (Exod. xxix. 41). Pusey says (p.

220), "The shift of halving the days is one of those monsters which

have disgraced scientific expositions 'of Hebrew.'" Yet this is the

view of such scholars as Ewald, Hitzig, Kuenen, Cornill, Behrmann.

The latter quotes a parallel: "vgl. im Hildebrandsliede _sumaro ente

wintro_ sehstie = 30 Jahr."

[581] Matt. xxiv. 22.

[582] "These five passages agree in making the final distress last

during three years and a fraction: the only difference lies in the

magnitude of the fraction" (Bevan, p. 127).

[583] 1 Macc. iv. 41-56; 2 Macc. x. 1-5.

[584] See on this period Diod. Sic., _Fr._, xxvi. 79; Liv., xlii. 29;

Polyb., _Legat._, 71; Justin, xxxiv. 2; Jer., _Comm. in Dan._, xi. 22;

Jahn, _Hebr. Commonwealth_, § xciv.; Prideaux, _Connection_, ii. 146.

[585] _Connection_, ii. 188.

[586] _Gesch. d. V. Isr._, i. 155.

[587] Some of these dates are _uncertain_, and are variously given by

different authorities.

CHAPTER III

_THE SEVENTY WEEKS_

This chapter is occupied with the prayer of Daniel, and with the

famous vision of the seventy weeks which has led to such interminable

controversies, but of which the interpretation no longer admits of

any certainty, because accurate data are not forthcoming.

The vision is dated in the first year of Darius, the son of

Achashverosh, of the Median stock.[588] We have seen already that

such a person is unknown to history. The date, however, accords

well in this instance with the literary standpoint of the writer.

The vision is sent as a consolation of perplexities suggested by

the writer's study of the Scriptures; and nothing is more naturally

imagined than the fact that the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire

should have sent a Jewish exile to the study of the rolls of his holy

prophets, to see what light they threw on the exile of his people.

He understood from "the books" the number of the years "whereof the

word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet for the accomplishing

of the desolation of Jerusalem, even seventy years."[589] Such is the

rendering of our Revisers, who here follow the A.V. ("I understood

by books"), except that they rightly use the definite article (LXX.,

ἐν ταῖς βίβλοις). Such too is the view of Hitzig. Mr. Bevan seems to

have pointed out the real meaning of the passage, by referring not

only to the Pentateuch generally, as helping to interpret the words

of Jeremiah, but especially to Lev: xxvi. 18, 21, 24, 28.[590] It was

there that the writer of Daniel discovered the method of interpreting

the "seventy years" spoken of by Jeremiah. The Book of Leviticus had

four times spoken of a sevenfold punishment--a punishment "seven

times more" for the sins of Israel. Now this thought flashed upon

the writer like a luminous principle. Daniel, in whose person he

wrote, had arrived at the period at which the literal seventy years

of Jeremiah were--on some methods of computation--upon the eve of

completion: the writer himself is living in the dreary times of

Antiochus. Jeremiah had prophesied that the nations should serve the

King of Babylon seventy years (Jer. xxv. 11), after which time God's

vengeance should fall on Babylon; and again (Jer. xxix. 10, 11), that

after seventy years the exiles should return to Palestine, since the

thoughts of Jehovah towards them were thoughts of peace and not of

evil, to give them a future and a hope.

The writer of Daniel saw, nearly four centuries later, that after

all only a mere handful of the exiles, whom the Jews themselves

compared to the chaff in comparison with the wheat, had returned

from exile; that the years which followed had been cramped, dismal,

and distressful; that the splendid hopes of the Messianic kingdom,

which had glowed so brightly on the foreshortened horizon of Isaiah

and so many of the prophets, had never yet been fulfilled; and that

these anticipations never showed fewer signs of fulfilment than in

the midst of the persecuting furies of Antiochus, supported by the

widespread apostasies of the Hellenising Jews, and the vile ambition

of such renegade high priests as Jason and Menelaus.

That the difficulty was felt is shown by the fact that the Epistle

of Jeremy (ver. 2) extends the epoch of captivity to two hundred and

ten years (7 × 30), whereas in Jer. xxix. 10 "seventy years" are

distinctly mentioned.[591]

What was the explanation of this startling apparent discrepancy

between "the sure word of prophecy" and the gloomy realities of

history?

The writer saw it in a _mystic_ or allegorical interpretation of

Jeremiah's seventy years. The prophet could not (he thought) have meant

seventy _literal_ years. The number seven indeed played its usual

mystic part in the epoch of punishment. Jerusalem had been taken B.C.

588; the first return of the exiles had been about B.C. 538. The Exile

therefore had, from one point of view, lasted forty-nine years--_i.e._,

7 × 7. But even if seventy years were reckoned from the fourth year of

Jehoiakim (B.C. 606?) to the decree of Cyrus (B.C. 536), and if these

seventy years could be made out, still the hopes of the Jews were on

the whole miserably frustrated.[592]

Surely then--so thought the writer--the real meaning of Jeremiah must

have been misunderstood; or, at any rate, only partially understood.

He must have meant, not "years," but _weeks of years_--_Sabbatical_

years. And that being so, the real Messianic fulfilments were not

to come till _four hundred and ninety years_ after the beginning

of the Exile; and this clue he found in Leviticus. It was indeed a

clue which lay ready to the hand of any one who was perplexed by

Jeremiah's prophecy, for the word שָׁבוּעַ, ἑβδομάς, means, not

only the week, but also "seven," and _the seventh year_;[593] and

the Chronicler had already declared that the reason why the land

was to lie waste for seventy years was that "the land" was "to

enjoy her Sabbaths"; in other words, that, as seventy Sabbatical

years had been wholly neglected (and indeed unheard of) during the

period of the monarchy--which he reckoned at four hundred and ninety

years--therefore it was to enjoy those Sabbatical years continuously

while there was no nation in Palestine to cultivate the soil.[594]

Another consideration may also have led the writer to his discovery.

From the coronation of Saul to the captivity of Zachariah, reckoning

the recorded length of each reign and giving seventeen years to Saul

(since the "forty years" of Acts xiii. 21 is obviously untenable),

gave four hundred and ninety years, or, as the Chronicler implies,

seventy unkept Sabbatic years. The writer had no means for an accurate

computation of the time which had elapsed since the destruction of the

Temple. But as there were four hundred and eighty years and twelve high

priests from Aaron to Ahimaaz, and four hundred and eighty years and

twelve high priests from Azariah I. to Jozadak, who was priest at the

beginning of the Captivity,--so there were twelve high priests from

Jozadak to Onias III.; and this seemed to imply a lapse of some four

hundred and ninety years in round numbers.[595]

The writer introduces what he thus regarded as a consoling and

illuminating discovery in a striking manner. Daniel coming to

understand for the first time the real meaning of Jeremiah's

"seventy years," "set his face unto the Lord God, to seek prayer and

supplication with fasting and sackcloth and ashes."[596]

His prayer is thus given:--

It falls into three strophes of equal length, and is "all alive

and aglow with a pure fire of genuine repentance, humbly assured

faith, and most intense petition."[597] At the same time it is the

composition of a literary writer, for in phrase after phrase it

recalls various passages of Scripture.[598] It closely resembles

the prayers of Ezra and Nehemiah, and is so nearly parallel with

the prayer of the apocryphal Baruch that Ewald regards it as an

intentional abbreviation of Baruch ii. 1-iii. 39. Ezra, however,

confesses the sins of his nation without asking for forgiveness; and

Nehemiah likewise praises God for His mercies, but does not plead for

pardon or deliverance; but Daniel entreats pardon for Israel and asks

that his own prayer may be heard. The sins of Israel in vv. 5, 6,

fall under the heads of wandering, lawlessness, rebellion, apostasy,

and heedlessness. It is one of the marked tendencies of the later

Jewish writings to degenerate into centos of phrases from the Law and

the Prophets. It is noticeable that the name Jehovah occurs in this

chapter of Daniel _alone_ (in vv. 2, 4, 10, 13, 14, 20); and that he

also addresses God as El, Elohim, and Adonai.

In the first division of the prayer (vv. 4-10) Daniel admits the

faithfulness and mercy of God, and deplores the transgressions of his

people from the highest to the lowest in all lands.

In the second part (vv. 11-14) he sees in these transgressions the

fulfilment of "the curse and the oath" written in the Law of Moses,

with special reference to Lev. xxvi. 14, 18, etc. In spite of all

their sins and miseries they had not "stroked the face" of the Lord

their God.[599]

The third section (vv. 15-19) appeals to God by His past mercies

and deliverances to turn away His wrath and to pity the reproach of

His people. Daniel entreats Jehovah to hear his prayer, to make His

face shine on His desolated sanctuary, and to behold the horrible

condition of His people and of His holy city. Not for their sakes is

He asked to show His great compassion, but because His Name is called

upon His city and His people.[600]

Such is the prayer; and while Daniel was still speaking, praying,

confessing his own and Israel's sins, and interceding before Jehovah

for the holy mountain--yea, even during the utterance of his

prayer--the Gabriel of his former vision came speeding to him in full

flight[601] at the time of the evening sacrifice.[602] The archangel

tells him that no sooner had his supplication begun than he sped on

his way, for Daniel is a dearly beloved one.[603] Therefore he bids

him take heed to the word and to the vision:--

1. Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people, and upon thy holy

city[604]--

(α) to finish (or "restrain") the transgression;

(β) to make an end of (or "seal up," Theodot. σφραγίσαι) sins;[605]

(γ) to make reconciliation for (or "to purge away") iniquity;

(δ) to bring in everlasting righteousness;

(ε) to seal up vision and prophet (Heb., _nābî_; LXX., προφήτην); and

(ζ) to anoint the Most Holy (or "a Most Holy Place"; LXX., εὐφρᾶναι

ἅγιον ἁγίων).

2. From the decree to restore Jerusalem unto the Anointed One (or

"the Messiah"), the Prince, shall be seven weeks. For sixty-two

weeks Jerusalem shall be built again with street and moat, though in

troublous times.[606]

3. After these sixty-two weeks--

(α) an Anointed One shall be cut off, and shall have no help (?) (or

"there shall be none belonging to him");[607]

(β) the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city

and the sanctuary;

(γ) his end and the end shall be with a flood, and war, and desolation;

(δ) for one week this alien prince shall make a covenant with many;

(ε) for half of that week he shall cause the sacrifice and burnt

offering to cease;

(ζ) and upon the wing of abominations [_shall come_] one that maketh

desolate;

(η) and unto the destined consummation [_wrath_] shall be poured out

upon a desolate one (?) (or "the horrible one").

Much is uncertain in the text, and much in the translation; but the

general outline of the declaration is clear in many of the chief

particulars, so far as they are capable of historic verification.

Instead of being a mystical prophecy which floated purely in the air,

and in which a week stands (as Keil supposes) for unknown, heavenly,

and symbolic periods--in which case no real information would have

been vouchsafed--we are expressly told that it was intended to give

the seer a definite, and even a minutely detailed, indication of the

course of events.

Let us now take the revelation which is sent to the perplexed mourner

step by step.

1. Seventy weeks are to elapse before any perfect deliverance is to

come. We are nowhere expressly told that _year-weeks_ are meant, but

this is implied throughout, as the only possible means of explaining

either the vision or the history. The conception, as we have seen,

would come to readers quite naturally, since _Shabbath_ meant in

Hebrew, not only the seventh day of the week, but the seventh year

in each week of years. Hence "seventy weeks" means four hundred and

ninety years.[608] Not until the four hundred and ninety _years_--the

seventy _weeks of years_--are ended will the time have come to

complete the prophecy which only had a sort of initial and imperfect

fulfilment in seventy _actual_ years.

The _precise_ meaning attached in the writer's mind to the events

which are to mark the close of the four hundred and ninety

years--namely, (α) the ending of transgression; (β) the sealing up

of sins; (γ) the atonement for iniquity; (δ) the bringing in of

everlasting righteousness; and (ε) the sealing up of the vision

and prophet (or prophecy[609])--cannot be further defined by us.

It belongs to the Messianic hope.[610] It is the prophecy of a

time which may have had some dim and partial analogies at the end

of Jeremiah's seventy years, but which the writer thought would be

more richly and finally fulfilled at the close of the Antiochian

persecution. At the actual time of his writing that era of

restitution had not yet begun.

But (ζ) another event, which would mark the close of the seventy

year-weeks, was to be "the anointing of a Most Holy."

What does this mean?

Theodotion and the ancient translators render it "_a_ Holy of

Holies." But throughout the whole Old Testament "Holy of Holies" _is

never once used of a person_, though it occurs forty-four times.[611]

Keil and his school point to 1 Chron. xxiii. 13 as an exception; but

"_Nil agit exemptum quod litem lite resolvit._"

In that verse some propose the rendering, "to sanctify, as most

holy, Aaron and his sons for ever"; but both the A.V. and the R.V.

render it, "Aaron was separated that he should sanctify _the most

holy things_, he and his sons for ever." If there be a doubt as to

the rendering, it is perverse to adopt the one which makes the usage

differ from that of every other passage in Holy Writ.

Now the phrase "most holy" is most frequently applied to the great

altar of sacrifice.[612] It is therefore natural to explain the

present passage as a reference to the reanointing of the altar of

sacrifice, primarily in the days of Zerubbabel, and secondarily by

Judas Maccabæus after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes.[613]

2. But in the more detailed explanation which follows, the seventy

year-weeks are divided into 7 + 62 + 1.

(a) At the end of the first seven week-years (after forty-nine years)

Jerusalem should be restored, and there should be "an Anointed, a

Prince."[614]

Some ancient Jewish commentators, followed by many eminent and

learned moderns,[615] understand this Anointed One (_Mashiach_) and

Prince (_Nagîd_) to be Cyrus; and that there can be no objection to

conferring on him the exalted title of "Messiah" is amply proved by

the fact that Isaiah himself bestows it upon him (Isa. xlv. 1).

Others, however, both ancient (like Eusebius) and modern (like

Grätz), prefer to explain the term of the anointed Jewish high

priest, Joshua, the son of Jozadak. For the term "Anointed" is given

to the high priest in Lev. iv. 3, vi. 20; and Joshua's position among

the exiles might well entitle him, as much as Zerubbabel himself, to

the title of _Nagîd_ or Prince.[616]

(β) After this restoration of Temple and priest, sixty-two weeks

(_i.e._, four hundred and thirty-four years) are to elapse, during

which Jerusalem is indeed to exist "with street and trench"--but in

the straitness of the times.[617]

This, too, is clear and easy of comprehension. It exactly corresponds

with the depressed condition of Jewish life during the Persian and

early Grecian epochs, from the restoration of the Temple, B.C. 538,

to B.C. 171, when the false high priest Menelaus robbed the Temple of

its best treasures. This is indeed, so far as accurate chronology is

concerned, an unverifiable period, for it only gives us three hundred

and sixty-seven years instead of four hundred and thirty-four:--but

of that I will speak later on. The punctuation of the original is

disputed. Theodotion, the Vulgate, and our A.V. punctuate in ver.

25, "From the going forth of the commandment" ("decree" or "word")

"that Jerusalem should be restored and rebuilt, unto an Anointed, a

Prince, are seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks." Accepting this view,

Von Lengerke and Hitzig make the seven weeks run _parallel_ with the

first seven in the sixty-two. This indeed makes the chronology a

little more accurate, but introduces an unexplained and a fantastic

element. Consequently most modern scholars, including even such

writers as Keil, and our Revisers follow the Masoretic punctuation,

and put the stop after the seven weeks, separating them entirely from

the following sixty-two.

3. After the sixty-two weeks is to follow a series of events, and all

these point quite distinctly to the epoch of Antiochus Epiphanes.

(α) Ver. 26.--An Anointed One[618] shall be cut off with all that

belongs to him.

There can be no reasonable doubt that this is a reference to

the deposition of the high priest Onias III., and his murder by

Andronicus (B.C. 171).[619] This startling event is mentioned in

2 Macc. iv. 34, and by Josephus (_Antt._, XII. v. 1), and in Dan.

xi. 22. It is added, "_and no ... to him_."[620] Perhaps the word

"helper" (xi. 45) has fallen out of the text, as Grätz supposes; or

the words may mean, "there is no [priest] for it [the people]."[621]

The A.V. renders it, "but not for himself"; and in the margin, "and

shall have nothing"; or, "and they [the Jews] shall be no more his

people." The R.V. renders it, "and shall have nothing." I believe,

with Dr. Joël, that in the Hebrew words _veeyn lô_ there may be a

sort of cryptographic allusion to the name Onias.[622]

(β) The people of the coming prince shall devastate the city and the

sanctuary (translation uncertain).

This is an obvious allusion to the destruction and massacre inflicted

on Jerusalem by Apollonius and the army of Antiochus Epiphanes (B.C.

167). Antiochus is called "the prince _that shall come_," because he

was at Rome when Onias III. was murdered (B.C. 171).[623]

(γ) "And until the end shall be a war, a sentence of desolation"

(Hitzig, etc.); or, as Ewald renders it, "Until the end of the war is

the decision concerning the horrible thing."

This alludes to the troubles of Jerusalem until the heaven-sent

Nemesis fell on the profane enemy of the saints in the miserable

death of Antiochus in Persia.

(δ) But meanwhile he will have concluded a covenant with many for one

week.[624]

In any case, whatever be the exact reading or rendering, this seems

to be an allusion to the fact that Antiochus was confirmed in his

perversity and led on to extremes in the enforcement of his attempt

to Hellenise the Jews and to abolish their national religion by the

existence of a large party of flagrant apostates. These were headed

by their godless and usurping high priests, Jason and Menelaus.

All this is strongly emphasised in the narrative of the Book of

Maccabees. This attempted apostasy lasted for one week--_i.e._, for

seven years; the years intended being probably the first seven of the

reign of Antiochus, from B.C. 175 to B.C. 168. During this period he

was aided by wicked men, who said, "Let us go and make a covenant

with the heathen round about us; for since we departed from them

we have had much sorrow." Antiochus "gave them licence to do after

the ordinances of the heathen," so that they built a gymnasium at

Jerusalem, obliterated the marks of circumcision, and were joined to

the heathen (1 Macc. i. 10-15).

(ε) For the half of this week (_i.e._, for three and a half

years) the king abolished the sacrifice and the oblation or meat

offering.[625]

This alludes to the suppression of the most distinctive ordinances of

Jewish worship, and the general defilement of the Temple after the

setting up of the heathen altar. The reckoning seems to be from the

edict promulgated some months before December, 168, to December, 165,

when Judas the Maccabee reconsecrated the Temple.

(ζ) The sentence which follows is surrounded with every kind of

uncertainty.

The R.V. renders it, "And upon the wing [or, pinnacle] of

abominations shall come [or, be] one that maketh desolate."

The A.V. has, "And for the overspreading of abominations" (or _marg._,

"with the abominable armies") "he shall make it desolate."[626]

It is from the LXX. that we derive the famous expression,

"abomination of desolation," referred to by St. Matthew (xxiv. 15:

cf. Luke xxi. 20) in the last discourse of our Lord.

Other translations are as follows:--

_Gesenius_: "Desolation comes upon the horrible wing of a rebel's

host."

_Ewald_: "And above will be the horrible wing of abominations."

_Wieseler_: "And a desolation shall arise against the wing of

abominations."

_Von Lengerke, Hengstenberg, Pusey_: "And over the edge [or,

pinnacle[627]] of abominations [cometh] the desolator";--which they

understand to mean that Antiochus will rule over the Temple defiled

by heathen rites.

_Kranichfeld and Keil_: "And a destroyer comes on the wings of

idolatrous abominations."

_Kuenen_, followed by others, boldly alters the text from _ve'al

k'naph_, "and upon the wing," into _ve'al kannô_, "and instead

thereof."[628]

"And instead thereof" (_i.e._, in the place of the sacrifice and meat

offering) "there shall be abominations."

It is needless to weary the reader with further attempts at

translation; but however uncertain may be the exact reading or

rendering, few modern commentators doubt that the allusion is to

the smaller heathen altar built by Antiochus above (_i.e._, on

the summit) of the "Most Holy"--_i.e._, the great altar of burnt

sacrifice--overshadowing it like "a wing" (_kanaph_), and causing

desolations or abominations (_shiqqootsîm_). That this interpretation

is the correct one can hardly be doubted in the light of the clearer

references to "the abomination that maketh desolate" in xi. 31

and xii. 11. In favour of this we have the almost contemporary

interpretation of the Book of Maccabees. The author of that history

directly applies the phrase "the abomination of desolation" to the

idol altar set up by Antiochus (1 Macc. i. 54, vi. 7).

(η) Lastly, the terrible drama shall end by an outpouring of wrath,

and a sentence of judgment on "the desolation" (R.V.) or "the

desolate" (A.V.).

This can only refer to the ultimate judgment with which Antiochus is

menaced.

It will be seen then that, despite all uncertainties in the text,

in the translation, and in the details, we have in these verses an

unmistakably clear foreshadowing of the same persecuting king, and

the same disastrous events, with which the mind of the writer is so

predominantly haunted, and which are still more clearly indicated in

the subsequent chapter.

Is it necessary, after an inquiry inevitably tedious, and of little

or no apparently spiritual profit or significance, to enter further

into the intolerably and interminably perplexed and voluminous

discussions as to the beginning, the ending, and the exactitude of

the seventy weeks?[629] Even St. Jerome gives, by way of specimen,

_nine_ different interpretations in his time, and comes to no

decision of his own. After confessing that all the interpretations

were individual guesswork, he leaves every reader to his own

judgment, and adds: "_Dicam quid unusquisque senserit, lectoris

arbitrio derelinquens cujus expositionem sequi debeat_."

I cannot think that the least advantage can be derived from doing so.

For scarcely any two leading commentators agree as to details;--or

even as to any fixed principles by which they profess to determine

the date at which the period of seventy weeks is to begin or is

to end;--or whether they are to be reckoned continuously, or with

arbitrary misplacements or discontinuations;--or even whether

they are not purely symbolical, so as to have no reference to

any chronological indications;[630]--or whether they are to be

interpreted as referring to one special series of events, or to

be regarded as having many fulfilments by "springing and germinal

developments." The latter view is, however, distinctly tenable. It

applies to all prophecies, inasmuch as history repeats itself; and

our Lord referred to another "abomination of desolation" which in His

days was yet to come.[631]

There is not even an initial agreement--or even the data as to an

agreement--whether the "years" to be counted are solar years of three

hundred and forty-three days, or lunar years, or "mystic" years, or

Sabbath years of forty-nine years, or "indefinite" years; or where

they are to begin and end, or in what fashion they are to be divided.

All is chaos in the existing commentaries.

As for any received or authorised interpretation, there not only is

none, but never has been. The Jewish interpreters differ from one

another as widely as the Christian. Even in the days of the Fathers,

the early exegetes were so hopelessly at sea in their methods of

application that St. Jerome contents himself, just as I have done,

with giving no opinion of his own.[632]

The attempt to refer the prophecy of the seventy weeks primarily or

directly to the coming and death of Christ, or the desolation of the

Temple by Titus, can only be supported by immense manipulations,

and by hypotheses so crudely impossible that they would have

made the prophecy practically meaningless both to Daniel and to

any subsequent reader. The hopelessness of this attempt of the

so-called "orthodox" interpreters is proved by their own fundamental

disagreements.[633] It is finally discredited by the fact that

neither our Lord, nor His Apostles, nor any of the earliest Christian

writers once appealed to the evidence of this prophecy, which, on

the principles of Hengstenberg and Dr. Pusey, would have been so

decisive! If such a proof lay ready to their hand--a proof definite

and chronological--why should they have deliberately passed it over,

while they referred to other prophecies so much more general, and so

much less precise in dates?

Of course it is open to any reader to adopt the view of Keil and

others, that the prophecy is Messianic, but only _typically_ and

_generally_ so.

On the other hand, it may be objected that the Antiochian hypothesis

breaks down, because--though it does not pretend to resort to any of

the wild, arbitrary, and I had almost said preposterous, hypotheses

invented by those who approach the interpretation of the Book with

_a-priori_ and _a-posteriori_[634] assumptions--it still does not

accurately correspond to ascertainable dates.

But to those who are guided in their exegesis, not by unnatural

inventions, but by the great guiding principles of history and

literature, this consideration presents no difficulty. Any exact

accuracy of chronology would have been far more surprising in

a writes of the Maccabean era than round numbers and vague

computations. Precise computation is nowhere prevalent in the

sacred books. The object of those books always is the conveyance of

eternal, moral, and spiritual instruction. To such purely mundane

and secondary matters as close reckoning of dates the Jewish writers

show themselves manifestly indifferent. It is possible that, if we

were able to ascertain the data which lay before the writer, his

calculations might seem less divergent from exact numbers than they

now appear. More than this we cannot affirm.

What was the date from which the writer calculated his seventy weeks?

Was it from the date of Jeremiah's first prophecy (xxv. 12), B.C.

605? or his second prophecy (xxix. 10), eleven years later, B.C.

594? or from the destruction of the first Temple, B.C. 586? or, as

some Jews thought, from the first year of "Darius the Mede"? or

from the decree of Artaxerxes in Neh. ii. 1-9? or from the birth of

Christ--the date assumed by Apollinaris? All these views have been

adopted by various Rabbis and Fathers; but it is obvious that not

one of them accords with the allusions of the narrative and prayer,

except that which makes the destruction of the Temple the _terminus

a quo_. In the confusion of historic reminiscences and the rarity of

written documents, the writer may not have consciously distinguished

this date (B.C. 588) from the date of Jeremiah's prophecy (B.C. 594).

That there were differences of computation as regards Jeremiah's

seventy years, even in the age of the Exile, is sufficiently shown by

the different views as to their termination taken by the Chronicler

(2 Chron. xxxvi. 22), who fixes it B.C. 536, and by Zechariah (Zech.

i. 12), who fixes it about B.C. 519.

As to the _terminus ad quem_, it is open to any commentator to say that

the prediction may point to many subsequent and analogous fulfilments;

but no competent and serious reader who judges of these chapters by the

chapters themselves and by their own repeated indications, can have

one moment's hesitation in the conclusion that the writer is thinking

mainly of the defilement of the Temple in the days of Antiochus

Epiphanes, and its reconsecration (in round numbers) three and a half

years later by Judas Maccabæus (December 25th, B.C. 164).

It is true that from B.C. 588 to B.C. 164 only gives us four hundred

and twenty-four years, instead of four hundred and ninety years. How

is this to be accounted for? Ewald supposes the loss of some passage

in the text which would have explained the discrepancy; and that the

text is in a somewhat chaotic condition is proved by its inherent

philological difficulties, and by the appearance which it assumes

in the Septuagint. The first seven weeks indeed, or forty-nine

years, approximately correspond to the time between B.C. 588 (the

destruction of the Temple) and B.C. 536 (the decree of Cyrus); but

the following sixty-two weeks should give us four hundred and

thirty-four years from the time of Cyrus to the cutting off of the

Anointed One, by the murder of Onias III. in B.C. 171, whereas it

only gives us three hundred and sixty-five. How are we to account for

this miscalculation to the extent of at least sixty-five years?

Not one single suggestion has ever accounted for it, or has ever

given exactitude to these computations on any tenable hypothesis.[635]

But Schürer has shown that _exactly similar mistakes of reckoning_

are made even by so learned and industrious an historian as Josephus.

1. Thus in his _Jewish War_ (VI. iv. 8) he says that there were six

hundred and thirty-nine years between the second year of Cyrus and

the destruction of the Temple by Titus (A.D. 70). Here is an error of

more than thirty years.

2. In his _Antiquities_ (XX. x.) he says that there were four hundred

and thirty-four years between the Return from the Captivity (B.C.

536) and the reign of Antiochus Eupator (B.C. 164-162). Here is an

error of more than sixty years.

3. In _Antt._, XIII. xi. 1, he reckons four hundred and eighty-one

years between the Return from the Captivity and the time of

Aristobulus (B.C. 105-104). Here is an error of some fifty years.

Again, the Jewish Hellenist Demetrius[636] reckons five hundred

and seventy-three years from the Captivity of the Ten Tribes (B.C.

722) to the time of Ptolemy IV. (B.C. 222), which is seventy years

too many. In other words, he makes as nearly as possible the same

miscalculations as the writer of Daniel. This seems to show that

there was some traditional error in the current chronology; and it

cannot be overlooked that in ancient days the means for coming to

accurate chronological conclusion were exceedingly imperfect. "Until

the establishment of the Seleucid era (B.C. 312), the Jew had no

fixed era whatsoever";[637] and nothing is less astonishing than

that an apocalyptic writer of the date of Epiphanes, basing his

calculations on uncertain data to give an allegoric interpretation to

an ancient prophecy, should have lacked the records which would alone

have enabled him to calculate with exact precision.[638]

And, for the rest, we must say with Grotius, "_Modicum nec prætor

curat, nec propheta_."

FOOTNOTES:

[588] Achashverosh, Esther viii. 10; perhaps connected with

_Kshajârsha_, "eye of the kingdom" (_Corp. Inscr. Sem._, ii. 125).

[589] By "the books" is here probably meant the Thorah or Pentateuch,

in which the writer discovered the key to the mystic meaning of the

seventy years. It was not in the two sections of Jeremiah himself

(called, according to Kimchi, _Sepher Hamattanah_ and _Sepher Hagalon_)

that he found this key. Jeremiah is here _Yir'myah_, as in Jer.

xxvii.-xxix. See Jer. xxv. 11; Ezek. xxxvii. 21; Zech. i. 12. In the

Epistle of Jeremy (ver. 2) the seventy years become seven generations

(Χρόνος μακρὸς ἕως ἑππὰ γενεῶν). See too Dillman's _Enoch_, p. 293.

[590] _Dan._, p. 146. Comp. a similar usage in Aul. Gell., _Noct.

Att._, iii. 10, "Se jam _undecimam annorum hebdomadem_ ingressum

esse"; and Arist., _Polit._, vii. 16.

[591] See Fritzsche _ad loc._; Ewald, _Hist. of Isr._, v. 140.

[592] The writer of 2 Chron. xxxv. 17, 18, xxxvi. 21, 22, evidently

supposed that seventy years had elapsed between the destruction of

Jerusalem and the decree of Cyrus--which is only a period of fifty

years. The Jewish writers were wholly without means for forming an

accurate chronology. For instance, the Prophet Zechariah (i. 12),

writing in the second year of Darius, son of Hystaspes (B.C. 520),

thinks that the seventy years were only then concluding. In fact, the

seventy years may be dated from B.C. 606 (fourth year of Jehoiakim);

or B.C. 598 (Jehoiachin); or from the destruction of the Temple (B.C.

588); and may be supposed to end at the decree of Cyrus (B.C. 536);

or the days of Zerubbabel (Ezra v. 1); or the decree of Darius (B.C.

518, Ezra vi. 1-12).

[593] Lev. xxv. 2, 4.

[594] 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21. See Bevan, p. 14.

[595] See Cornill, _Die Siebzig Jahrwochen Daniels_, pp. 14-18.

[596] The LXX. and Theodotion, with a later ritual bias, make the

_fasting_ a means towards the prayer: εὑρεῖν προσευχὴν καὶ ἔλεος ἐν

νηστείαις.

[597] Ewald, p. 278. The first part (vv. 4-14) is mainly occupied

with confessions and acknowledgment of God's justice; the last

part (vv. 15-19) with entreaty for pardon: _confessio_ (vv. 4-14);

_consolatio_ (vv. 15-19) (Melancthon).

[598] Besides the parallels which follow, it has phrases from Exod.

xx. 6; Deut. vii. 21, x. 17; Jer. vii. 19; Psalm xliv. 16, cxxx. 4; 2

Chron. xxxvi. 15, 16. Mr. Deane (Bishop Ellicott's _Commentary_, p.

407) thus exhibits the details of special resemblances:--

+----------+----------+----------+----------+

| Dan. ix. | Ezra ix. | Neh. ix. | Baruch. |

+----------+----------+----------+----------+

| Verse. | Verse. | Verse. | |

| 4 | 7 | 32 | -- |

| 5 | 7 | 33, 34 | i. 11 |

| 6 | 7 | 32, 33 | -- |

| 7 | 6, 7 | 32, 33 | i. 15-17 |

| 8 | 6, 7 | 33 | -- |

| 9 | -- | 17 | -- |

| 13 | -- | -- | ii. 7 |

| 14 | 15 | 33 | -- |

| 15 | -- | 10 | ii. 11 |

| 18 | -- | -- | ii. 19 |

| 19 | -- | -- | ii. 15 |

+----------+----------+----------+----------+

[599] ix. 13 (Heb.). Comp. Exod. xxxii. 13; 1 Sam. xiii. 12; 1 Kings

xiii. 6, etc.

[600] Comp. Jer. xxxii. 17-23; Isa. lxiii. 11-16.

[601] ix. 21. LXX., τάχει φερόμενος; Theodot., πετόμενος; Vulg.,

_cito volans_; A.V. and R.V., "being made to fly swiftly"; R.V.

marg., "being sore wearied"; A.V. marg., "with weariness"; Von

Lengerke, "being caused to hasten with haste." The verb elsewhere

always connotes weariness. If that be the meaning here, it must refer

to Daniel. If it here means "flying," it is the only passage in the

Old Testament where angels fly; but see Isa. vi. 2; Psalm civ. 4,

etc. The _wings of angels_ are first mentioned in the Book of Enoch,

lxi.; but see Rev. xiv. 6--cherubim and seraphim have wings.

[602] In the time of the historic Daniel, as in the brief three and a

half years of Antiochus, the _tamîd_ had ceased.

[603] ix. 23. Heb., _eesh hamudôth_; Vulg., _vir desideriorum_, "a

man of desires"; Theodot., ἀνὴρ ἐπιθυμιῶν. Comp. x. 11, 19, and Jer.

xxxi. 20, where "a pleasant child" is "a son of caresses"; and the

"_amor et deliciæ generis humani_" applied to Titus; and the names

David, Jedidiah, "beloved of Jehovah." The LXX. render the word

ἐλεεινός, "an object of pity."

[604] Daniel used _Shabuîm_ for weeks, not _Shabuôth_.

[605] In ver. 24 the _Q'rî_ and _Kethîbh_ vary, as do also the versions.

[606] For _charoots_, "moat" (Ewald), the A.V. has "wall," and in

the marg. "breach" or "ditch." The word occurs for "ditches" in the

Talmud. The text of the verse is uncertain.

[607] Perhaps because neither Jason nor Menelaus (being apostate)

were regarded as genuine successors of Onias III.

[608] Numb. xiv. 34; Lev. xxvi. 34; Ezek. iv. 6.

[609] Comp. Jer. xxxii. 11, 44.

[610] See Isa. xlvi. 3, li. 5, liii. 11; Jer. xxiii. 6, etc.

[611] For the _anointing_ of the altar see Exod. xxix. 36, xl. 10;

Lev. viii. 11; Numb. vii. 1. It would make no difference in the _usus

loquendi_ if neither Zerubbabel's nor Judas's altar was _actually_

anointed.

[612] It is only used thirteen times of the _Debhîr_, or Holiest Place.

[613] 1 Macc. iv. 54.

[614] Theodot., ἕως χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου.

[615] Saadia the Gaon, Rashi, Von Lengerke, Hitzig, Schürer, Cornill.

[616] Hag. i. 1; Zech. iii. 1; Ezra iii. 2. Comp. Ecclus. xlv. 24;

Jos., _Antt._, XII. iv. 2, προστάτης; and see Bevan, p. 156.

[617] We see from Zech. i. 12, ii. 4, that even in the second year of

Darius Hystaspis Jerusalem had neither walls nor gates; and even in

the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the wall was still broken down and

the gates burnt (Neh. i. 3).

[618] LXX., ἀποσταθήσεται χρίσμα καὶ οὐκ ἔσται; Theodot.,

ἐξολεθρευθήσεται χρίσμα καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ; Aquil., ἐξ. ἠλειμμένος

καὶ οὐχ ὑπάρξει αὐτῷ.

[619] See xi. 22. Von Lengerke, however, and others refer it to

Seleucus Philopator, murdered by Heliodorus (B.C. 175).

[620] Syr. Aquil., οὐχ ὑπάρξει αὐτῷ; Theodot., καὶ οὔκ ἐστιν ἐν

αῦτῳ; LXX., καὶ οὐκ ἔσται; Vulg., "Et non erit ejus populus qui eum

negaturus est." The A.V. "and not for himself" is untenable. It would

have been לוֹ וְלֹא. See Pusey, p. 182, _n._

[621] Steudel, Hofmann. So too Cornill, p. 10: "Ein frommer Jude das

Hoher Priesterthum mit Onias für erloschen ansah."

[622] Comp. לו ואין and חניו (Joël, _Notizen_, p. 21).

[623] Jos., _Antt._, XII. v. 4; 1 Macc. i. 29-40.

[624] Here again the meaning is uncertain; and Grätz, altering the

reading, thinks that it should be, "He shall abolish the covenant

[with God] for the many"; or, "shall cause the many to transgress the

covenant."

[625] Dan. ix. 27. Heb., _Zebach oo-minchah_, "the bloody and

unbloody offering."

[626] The special allusion, whatever it may precisely mean, is found

under three different designations: (i) In viii. 13 it is called

_happeshang shomeem_; Gk., ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐρημώσεως; Vulg., _peccatum

desolationis_. (ii) In ix. 27 (comp. ix. 31) it is _shiqqootsîm

m'shomeem_; Gk., βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως; Vulg., _abominatio

desolationis_. (iii) In xii. 11 it is _shiqqoots shomeem_; Gk.,

τὸ βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως; Vulg., _abominatio in desolationem_. Some

traditional fact must (as Dr. Joël says) have underlain the rendering

"_of desolation_" for "_of the desolator_." In xi. 31 Theodotion

has ἠφανισμένων, "of things done away with," for ἐρημωσέων. The

expression with which the New Testament has made us so familiar is

found also in 1 Macc. i. 51 (comp. 1 Macc. vi. 7): "they built _the

abomination of desolation_ upon the altar." There "the abomination"

seems clearly to mean a smaller altar for heathen sacrifice to Zeus,

built on the great altar of burnt offering. Perhaps the writer of

Daniel took the word _shomeem_, "desolation," as a further definition

of _shiqqoots_, "abomination," from popular speech; and it may have

involved a reference to Lev. xxvi. 15-31: "If ye shall despise My

statutes ... I will even appoint over you terror ... and I will make

your cities waste, _and appoint your sanctuaries unto desolation_."

The old Jewish exegetes referred the prophecy to Antiochus Epiphanes;

Josephus and later writers applied it to the Romans. Old Christian

expositors regarded it as Messianic; but even Jerome records _nine_

different views of commentators, many of them involving the grossest

historic errors and absurdities. Of Post-Reformation expositors down

to the present century scarcely two agree in their interpretations.

At the present day modern critics of any weight almost unanimously

regard these chapters, in their primary significance, as _vaticinia

ex eventu_, as some older Jewish and Christian exegetes had already

done. Hitzig sarcastically says that the exegetes have here fallen

into all sorts of _shiqqootsîm_ themselves.

[627] Comp. πτερύγιον (Matt. iv. 5).

[628] Kuenen, _Hist. Crit. Onderzook._, ii. 472.