It is fair to say
that the weakest spot in the whole structure of the Maccabean theory is to be
found in the identification of the fourth empire predicted in chapter 2. In
order to maintain their position, the late-date theorists have to interpret
this fourth empire as referring to the kingdom of the Macedonians or Greek
founded by Alexander the Great around 330 B.C. This means that the third empire
must be identified with the Persian realm established by Cyrus the Great, and
the second empire has to be the short-lived Median power briefly maintained by
the legendary Darius the Mede. According to this interpretation, then, the head
of gold in chapter 2 represents the Chaldean empire, the breast of silver the
Median empire, the belly and the thighs of brass the Persian empire, and the
legs of iron the Greek empire. Although this identification of the four empires
is widely held by scholars today, it is scarcely tenable in the light of
internal evidence. That is to say, the text of Daniel itself gives the
strongest indications of the one and the same empire, and that despite his designation
of King Darius as “the Mede,” he never entertained the notion that there was
any time a separate and distinct Median empire.
In the first place,
the symbolism of Daniel 7 precludes the possibility of identifying the second empire
as Media and the third empire as Persia. In this chapter, the first kingdom is represented
by a lion. (All scholars agree that this represents the Chaldeans or Babylonian
realm.) The second kingdom appears as a bear devouring three ribs. This would
well correspond to the three major conquests of the Medo-Persian empire: Lydia,
Babylon and Egypt (under Cyrus the Great and Cambyses). The third empire is
represented as a leopard with four wings and four heads. There is no record
that the Persian empire was divided into four parts, but it is well known that
the empire of Alexander the Great separated into four parts subsequent to his
death, namely, Macedon, Asia Minor, the Seleucid empire (including Syria,
Babylonia and Persia) and Egypt. The natural inference, therefore, would be
that the leopard represented the Greek empire. The fourth kingdom is presented
as a fearsome ten-horned beast, incomparably more powerful than the others and
able to devour the whole earth. The ten horns strongly suggest the ten toes of
the image described in chapter 2, and it should be noted that these toes are described
in chapter 2 as having a close connection with the two legs of iron. The two
legs can easily be identified with the Roman empire, which in the time of
Diocletian divided into the Eastern and the Western Roman empires. But there is
no way in which they can be reconciled with the history of the Greek empire
which followed upon Alexander’s death.
In Daniel 8 we have
further embolism to aid us in this identification of empires two and three.
There a two-horned ram (one horn of which is higher than the other, just as
Persia overshadowed Media in Cyrus’ empire) is finally overthrown by a he-goat,
who at first shows but one horn (easily identified with Alexander the Great)
but subsequently sprouts four horns (i.e., Macedon, Asia Minor, Syria and
Egypt), out of which there finally develops a little horn, that is, Antiochus
Epiphanes.
From the standpoint
of the symbolism of chapter 2, 7 and 8, therefore, the identification of the
four empires with Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome presents a perfect
correspondence, whereas the identifications involved in the Maccabean date
theory present the gravest problems and discrepancies.
In this connection it
ought to be noted that the strongest argument for identifying Daniel’s fourth
empire with that of Alexander and his Greek successors is derived from the
appearance of the little horn in chapters 7 and 8. That is to say, in chapter 7
the little horn admittedly develops from the fourth empire, that is, from the
fearsome ten-horned beast who overthrows the four-winged leopard. But in chapter
8, the little horn develops from the head of the he-goat, who plainly
represents the Greek empire. As we have already mentioned, this goat commenced
its career with one horn (Alexander the Great), but then produced four others
in its place. There can be no question that the little horn in chapter 8 points
to a ruler of the Greek empire, that is, Antiochus Epiphanes. The critics
therefore assume that since the same term is used the little horn in chapter 7
must refer to the same individual. This, however, can hardly be the case, since
the four-winged leopard of chapter 7 clearly corresponds to the four-horned
goat of chapter 8; that is, both represent the Greek empire which divided into
four after Alexander’s death. The only reasonable deduction to draw is that
there are two little horns involved in the symbolic visions of Daniel. One of
them emerges from the third empire, and the other is to emerge from the fourth.
It would seem that the relationship is that of type (Antiochus IV of the third
kingdom) and antitype (the Antichrist who is to arise from the latter-day form
of the fourth empire). This is the only explanation which satisfies all the
data and which throws light upon 11:40ff., where the figure of the historic
Antiochus suddenly blends into the figure of an Antichrist who is yet to come
in the end time.
Two other considerations
should be adduced to show that the author regarded the Medes and Persians as
constituting the one and same empire. In Daniel 6, Darius is said to be bound
by “the law of the Medes and Persians,” so that he could not revoke the decree consigning
Daniel to the loins’ den. If the author regarded Darius as ruler of an
independent Median empire earlier in time than the Persian, it is impossible to
explain why he should have been bound by the laws of the Persians. Secondly, we
have the evidence of the handwriting on the wall as interpreted by Daniel in
5:28. There Daniel is represented as interesting the inscription to Belshazzar,
the last king of the first empire, that is, the kingdom of the Chaldeans. He
says in interpreting the third word, peres, “Thy kingdom is divided, and
given to the Medes and Persians.” This is obviously a word play in which the
term parsin, or rather its singular peres, is derived from the
verb peras, meaning to “divide” or “separate.” But it is also
explained as pointing to pārās, or “Persian.” This can only mean that
according to the author, the Chaldean empire was removed from Belshazzar as the
last representative of the first empire and given to the Medes and Persians who
constituted the second empire. This cannot mean that the rule was first given
to the Medes and only later to be transmitted to the Persians, because the
significant word which appeared in the handwriting on the wall was quite specifically
the word “Persia.” The sequence, therefore, is clear: the empire passed from
the Chaldean to the Persian. There can be no legitimate doubt that the author
regarded the Persians as maters of the second empire. This being the case, it
can only follow the fourth empire indeed represented Rome.
If, then, the fourth
empire of chapter 2, as corroborated by the other symbolic representations of
chapter 7, clearly pointed forward to the establishment of the Roman empire, it
can only follow that we are dealing here with genuine predictive prophecy and
not a mere vaticinium ex eventu. According to the Maccabean date theory,
Daniel was composed between 168 and 165 B.C., whereas the Roman empire did not
commence (for the Jews at least) until 63 B.C., when Pompey the Great took over
that part of the Near East which included Palestine. To be sure, Hannibal had
already been defeated by Scipio at Zama in 202 B.C., and Antiochus III had been
crushed at Magnesia in 190, but the Romans had still not advanced beyond the
limits of Europe by 165, except to establish a vassal kingdom in Asia Minor and
a protectorate over Egypt. But certainly, as things stood in 165 B.C., no human
being could have predicted with any assurance that the Hellenic monarchies of
the Near West would be engulfed by the new power which had arisen in the West.
No man then living could have foreseen that this Italian republic would have
exerted a sway more ruthless and widespread than any empire that had ever
preceded it. This one circumstance alone, then, that Daniel predicts the Roman
empire, is difficult to overthrow the entire Maccabean date hypothesis (which
of course was an attempt to explain away the supernatural element of
prediction and fulfillment). (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old
Testament Introduction [Chicago: Moody Press, 1964], 382-85)
Further Reading
Thomas E. Gaston, Historical Issues in the Book of Daniel