The Peshitta explicitly distinguishes them as two separate kingdoms within the sequence of four beasts, treating Media as the second kingdom (the bear in 7:5) and Persia as the third (the leopard in 7:6). This is a distinctive interpretive feature of the Peshitta’s Syriac translation, which includes added glosses (explanatory notes) in verses 7:5–8 to clarify the identities of the beasts. These glosses reflect an ancient understanding—shared with some early Jewish and Christian interpreters—that aligns the four kingdoms with Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece (with the “little horn” of the fourth beast linked to Antiochus IV Epiphanes).
Within the framework of Daniel, what we see represented, is that a Median king came to power at the death of Belshazzar, prior to the reign of Cyrus the Persian. The text repeatedly emphasizes a racial distinction between Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian. What we end up with, within the context (and narrative) of Daniel, are four distinct kingdoms: [1] Babylon, [2] Medes, [3] Persians, and [4] Greek. In other words, in the authors view of history, there were four successive kingdoms from Babylon to Greece. On the other hand, the Roman empire can only be found in the book through conjecture and disputed interpretation.
Historical evidence clearly points to no intermediate reign of the Medes between Belshazzar and Cyrus the Persian. Regardless of what we now know to be true, historically, what is portrayed by the author must be taken into consideration based on what the author intended to convey. The distinction is clearly portrayed throughout Daniel.
Having said that, it seems clear that the author knew of the Medo-Persian empire when he refers to laws of the Medes and Persians as binding on Darius; when he, through the writing on the wall, interpreted the Babylonian kingdom would fall to the Medes and Persians; however, it should be noted that the author also specified that the Babylonian kingdom was to be divided between the two; when in chapter 8 he represents the Medo-Persian empire as a single animal, but draws a distinction between the two horns; etc.
Within the framework of Daniel, what we see represented, is that a Median king came to power at the death of Belshazzar, prior to the reign of Cyrus the Persian. The text repeatedly emphasizes a racial distinction between Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian. What we end up with, within the context (and narrative) of Daniel, are four distinct kingdoms: [1] Babylon, [2] Medes, [3] Persians, and [4] Greek. In other words, in the authors view of history, there were four successive kingdoms from Babylon to Greece. On the other hand, the Roman empire can only be found in the book through conjecture and disputed interpretation.
Historical evidence clearly points to no intermediate reign of the Medes between Belshazzar and Cyrus the Persian. Regardless of what we now know to be true, historically, what is portrayed by the author must be taken into consideration based on what the author intended to convey. The distinction is clearly portrayed throughout Daniel.
Having said that, it seems clear that the author knew of the Medo-Persian empire when he refers to laws of the Medes and Persians as binding on Darius; when he, through the writing on the wall, interpreted the Babylonian kingdom would fall to the Medes and Persians; however, it should be noted that the author also specified that the Babylonian kingdom was to be divided between the two; when in chapter 8 he represents the Medo-Persian empire as a single animal, but draws a distinction between the two horns; etc.
It is clear that the author saw the connection between the two, yet continued to represent them as two distinct, racial powers, and yet also allied. This is clearly seen in the Ram of chapter 8. Distinctions are drawn between the history of the two horns. One preceded the other, and was in some unspecified respect, unequal with the other.
The author clearly portrays the Medes as being dominant, at the time Babylon fell, and shortly changing over to the Persians as being dominant before the clash with Alexander the Great. In fact, history shows that the Medes were, at one time, dominant over the Persians. The author was clearly aware of this, and perhaps is the reason for the short reign in his writings. He felt a need to express the Medes, in the succession of dominating empires, as they were at one time clearly dominant.
It should also be taken into account that the author had no view of specific history as we do. The author did have Biblical accounts however. He may have easily been led to believe that the Medes were meant to conquer Babylon by reading Jeremiah’s prophecies. Perhaps also reading deutero-Isaiah could be reason for explaining the division of Babylon between the two.
In other words, the author believed both prophecies were fulfilled. He knew there had been a Median empire before the Persian. He knew the Medes had swept the Assyrians before and that they were expected to defeat the Babylonians (Jeremiah). He also knew that Cyrus had established supremacy over the Medes and that they had some hand in the fall of Babylon. He was presenting his story from what little news, or recorded historical accounts, that he had access to.
In all likelihood, this is how the Book of Daniel was passed down to us. A Jewish author, in Jerusalem, takes the old Aramaic court tales (chs. 2–6), adds a Hebrew introduction (ch. 1), writes new apocalyptic visions in Aramaic and Hebrew (chs. 7–12), and turns the whole thing into a unified book of resistance theology against Antiochus IV. He keeps the traditional hero’s name — Daniel — and sets everything in the distant past to give hope: “God overthrew Babylon, the Medes, and Persia; He will overthrow the Greeks too.”
The intent of the author was to express the four kingdoms clearly presented in the overall text of Daniel… Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. There is no other answer that could possibly fit.
No comments:
Post a Comment