Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Daniel 8:1-8
8 In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first. 2 And I saw in the vision; and when I saw, I was in Susa the citadel, which is in the province of Elam. And I saw in the vision, and I was at the Ulai canal. 3 I raised my eyes and saw, and behold, a ram standing on the bank of the canal. It had two horns, and both horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. 4 I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward. No beast could stand before him, and there was no one who could rescue from his power. He did as he pleased and became great.
5 As I was considering, behold, a male goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth, without touching the ground. And the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes. 6 He came to the ram with the two horns, which I had seen standing on the bank of the canal, and he ran at him in his powerful wrath. 7 I saw him come close to the ram, and he was enraged against him and struck the ram and broke his two horns. And the ram had no power to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled on him. And there was no one who could rescue the ram from his power. 8 Then the goat became exceedingly great, but when he was strong, the great horn was broken, and instead of it there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven.
_____________________________
Daniel 8 – which we start above – is another vision from the prophet. The prevailing view is that this vision concerns the eventual fall of the Medo-Persian Empire at the hands of Alexander the Great. Well jump right in with a note on verse 1 from Ellicott’s Bible Commentary:
(1) The Hebrew language is here resumed. The visions recorded in the remaining portion of the book having no connection with Babylon, the Chaldee dialect is dropped.
Third year.—Most probably, not long before the end of his reign. This vision is supplementary to the one recorded in the preceding chapter, giving various details respecting the second and third empires there omitted, showing also how a “little horn” is to grow out of the third as well as out of the fourth empire.
At the first—i.e., earlier. (Comp. Daniel 9:21.)
We are reminded in the note that Daniel’s original text was written in multiple languaged. Here we have returned to Hebrew. The note implies (or speculates) that the change is related to the fact that the remaining visions are unrelated to Babylon.
Verse 1 lets us know that this vision came after the vision(s) which came before it. We are told here precisely when this vision occurred. We are told directly, or given context clues, regarding the timing of his other visions as well. Continuing on with Ellicott and verse 2:
(2) At Shushan—i.e., Susa. At this time (see Records of the Past, vol. 1, p. 71, &c.) Susa was, as Daniel describes it, in the province of Elam; at a later period it became the capital of the Persian empire. Daniel was at Susa only in vision, he was not bodily transported thither. The Ulai is the river Eulæus, and is mentioned in connection with Susa in the inscription cited above.
This description of place lets us know about whom the vision concerns. There should not be any confusion that the ram (described starting in v. 3) is anything other than the Medo-Persian Empire. The two ethnic groups are represented by the two horns, with the Persian portion of the empire becoming greater over time. If we remember back to Daniel 2, the Medo-Persian Empire appears to be represented within the vision by the statue’s two arms, and chest. For a lengthy but explanatory note on verse 3, we’ll look next at the Pulpit Commentaries:
Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns; and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. The rendering of the LXX. does not differ essentially from the Massoretic Version, save in the last clause, which is rendered, “and the higher ascended (ἀνέβαινε).” As in the former verse, oobal is translated “gate.” Certainly, as before remarked, “before a river” is an awkward combination; “before“ or “over against a gate” is intelligible. “Eastward,” which liphnee also means, will not suit the geographical circumstances, as Shushan itself stood on the east bank of the river Eulaeus, or Shapur. If, further, oobal means a “marsh,” as Jerome renders it, then “eastward” would not suit. for the existing marsh is to the south-west of Shushan. Theodotion is in closer agreement with the Massoretic text, but does not translate
. The Peshitta renders “westward,” not by yammah, but by the term for “west” that became common in Exilic and post-Exilic Hebrew, ma‛arab—the word that is used in the next verse. Ezekiel uses yammah for “west,” when in vision he places himself in Palestine, otherwise it is not used for “west” by Exilic and post-Exilic writers. If we take the statement of the next verse as fixing what was “the west” to the author of Daniel, where would “seaward” be? If we draw a line from Tress, where Alexander landed, and continue it through Babylon, it reaches the Persian Gulf. “Seaward” would mean consequently “eastward,” or approximately so, to one writing in Babylon. A great number of suggestions have been offered to explain the singular omission of “eastward” from the direction in which the ram pushes with his horns, Havernick, and following him Moses Stuart, assert that “eastward” is not mentioned because the Persians made no conquests to the east until the days of Darius Hystaspis, and then not permanent ones. Against this is the fact that Elam and Media were mainly east of Ansan. Further, the picture here given of the Persian Empire is not restricted to the days of Cyrus and Cambyses, but all through its course. As to the permanence of these Eastern conquests, the territories of Darius Codomannus east of Arbela embraced modern Persia and other territories to the confines of India. Keil assumes that the ram stands on the western bank of the Shapur, so, if he pushed eastward, it would be against his own capital; but if oobal means “a river,” then the only meaning possible for liphnee is “eastward.” He would then be butting towards the river across which the enemy was likely to come, moreover, against his own capital, unless the ram is supposed to be between the river and the city—an unlikely supposition, as Shushan was on the river Eulaeus. He further maintains that the unfolding of the power of Persia was towards these three named directions, and not towards the last, whatever that may mean. Ewald declares the ram does not butt towards the east, because that already belongs to him. As a matter of fact, and, as exhibited by the Book of Esther, welt known to the Jews, the Persian Empire did conquer towards the east. Behrmann says, “The ram does not push towards the east, because he comes from the east—a delicacy the Septuagint overlooked.” In point of fact, there is no word in the vision of the ram coming from anywhere—this delicacy (feinheit) Professor Behrmann has overlooked. Kranich-fold and Zöckler follow this. The view of Bishop Newton, followed by Archdeacon Rose, is that the east had no importance to the Jews; but north and south had just a little. Jephet-ihn-Ali and several modern commentators think the three directions, as the three ribs, imply the limitation of the Persian Empire. It certainly was recognized by the Jews to be little, if at all, less than that of Alexander the Great Hitzig propounds in all gravity an absurd view; he assumes that the ram was standing on the west bank of the river, and faced west, and argues that he did not butt eastward because he could not butt backwards. His preliminary assumption is groundless, as we have seen, and rams can change their position. The true explanation is that a direction has dropped out. While “seaward“ had ceased to mean “west” to the Jews in Babylon, it did not take long residence in Palestine to recover this name for “west.”£ A copyist living in Palestine, finding yammah, in the first place would translate it “westward;” then after “northward” he would, in the third place, come upon ma‛arab, which also meant “west;” so naturally he dropped the second of what seemed to him synonymous terms. If we are correct in our supposition, we have here demonstrative proof that Daniel was written by one living in Babylon Are beasts might stand before him. All the powers round Persia had to submit to him. And be became great affords proof, if proof were needed, that the vision applies to the whole of the history of Persia. There is little necessity for Moses Stuart’s translation, “became haughty.”
So we have the symbolic picture of the indomitable Persian Empire, represented in teh form of the two horned ram. Then comes a goat. (From Ellicott at verse 5)
(5) An he goat.—This, according to Daniel 8:21, means the Greek empire, the large horn being the first king, or Alexander the Great. It may be remarked that the goat and the ram form the same contrast as the panther and the bear. Matchless activity is contrasted with physical strength and brutal fierceness.
Touched not the ground.—An exact prediction of the early conquests of Alexander, all whose movements were characterised by marvellous rapidity. This is expressed by “the wings of a fowl” (Daniel 7:6).
A notable horn.—See margin. This is explained (Daniel 8:21) to be Alexander himself.
Adding to the last sentence above… it is notable that a horn here refers to an individual man, when we reflect back upon the previous chapter in Daniel. If the horn on the goat is Alexander the Great, the little horn on the 4th beast seems likely to also be a specific person.
As with the previous vision, from chapter 7, the third beast is represented by one that becomes four. The Empire of Alexander the Great was divided between his four major generals, and each of those areas of land became empires in their own right over time.
One of the great “what ifs” of history is what the world might have looked like had Alexander the Great lived long enough to solidify his empire or even to expand upon it.
Either way though, his life meant much of the world – pictured on the map above – was Hellenized, adopting both the Greek culture and the Greek language. When a carpenter from Judea sent out disciples a few centuries later, they were able to travel much of the world and communicate in Greek.
Continuing to verse 6, now with the note from TPC:
And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. The differences of the Septuagint from the received text are slight here. Oobal is still translated πύλη; it renders, “fury of his rage” rather than “fury of his power.” The Massoretic, as the less obvious collocation, is the better reading. Theodotion and the Peshitta leave oobal untranslated. The latter omits the last clause of the Massoretic. In the Hebrew the ram is called Baal-karnayeem, “lord of two horns.” Alexander’s war against Persia was one of simple aggression.
And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. The two Greek versions, though differing very much in the Greek words chosen as equivalent to the Hebrew, yet both represent a text practically identical with that of the Massoretes. The Peshitta omits the introductory “behold,” but otherwise can scarcely be said to differ essentially from the received text, though there are some peculiarities due to mistaken reading, but unimportant. The word yithmormar, “he was emhittered,” is a word that occurs here and in the eleventh chapter. The root, however, as might be guessed from its meaning, is not uncommon, being found in Genesis Exodus, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Ruth, Job, and Zechariah. How Professor Bevan can class this with “words or roots which occur nowhere else in the Old Testament” it is difficult to see. If this part of the verb occurs in later Jewish literature, it is singular that neither Buxtorf nor Levy chronicles the fact. It does not occur in Western Aramaic, but does in Eastern (comp. Peshitta 2 Samuel 18:33; Acts 17:16). It is quite such a word as a man writing among those who spoke Eastern Aramaic might use. Alexander advanced always against Darius; he would not even speak of treating with him. After the passage of the Granicus, he pushed on to Cilicia, overthrew Darius at Issus, b.c. 333; then, after the conquest of Egypt, advanced against him again at Arbela, and once more inflicted on him an overwhelming defeat. When Darius fled from the field, Alexander pursued him to the shores of the Caspian and into Bactria and Sogdiana, till Darius fell a victim to the treachery of Bessus. Certainly relentlessness was the most marked character of Alexander’s pursuit of Darius. The horns of the Persian power were broken, thrown to the earth, and trodden underfoot.
Ellicott adds the following, regarding Alexander the Great’s conquest:
(6) Ran unto him.—The wonderful rapidity of Alexander’s movements, incredible, if it were not so well attested in history, is here pointed out. From the battle of Granicus to that of Arbela only three years elapsed. During this brief period the whole Persian empire fell to pieces.
The defining characteristic of Alexander’s military campaign was its speed and aggression. Alexander allegedly reached India and wept for there were no more worlds o conquer. However, had he not died so young, he may have eventually looked north or west. Or the empire might have fallen apart on his watch and his legend might now not be what it is.
We’ll finish the section with another note from Ellicott, at verse 8:
(8) Was broken.—This points to the sudden and unexpected end of Alexander, B.C. 323. The “four horns,” which take the place of the “notable horn,” may mean either that this empire was dispersed to the four winds of heaven on the death of its founder (comp. Daniel 7:2; Daniel 11:4; Jeremiah 49:36; Zechariah 2:6), or it may hint at the ultimate division of the empire into four parts, Thrace, Macedonia, Syria, Egypt, under Symmachus, Cassander, Seleucus, and Ptolemy respectively.
Alexander died (i.e. the horn was broken) and four other horns sprang up – the four generals who took shares of his empire.
When we get to the next section, we’ll examine an interesting passage. If we are using Daniel to interpret Daniel, the next few verses from chapter 8 might provide a clue as to one interpretive identity for the 4th beast.
