CHAPTER XXIII.

NOTICES OF EGYPT IN DANIEL.

THE notices of Egypt in the Book of Daniel have the peculiarity that they are absolutely and entirely prophetical. Daniel is not individually brought into any contact with Egypt; nor does Egypt play any part in the stirring events of the time wherein he lives. Egypt had, in fact, fallen to the rank of a very secondrate power after the battle of Carchemish (B. c. 605), and counted for little in the political struggles of the time, which had for their locality the great Iranian plateau, together with the broad valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates. Daniel, who was contemporary, as he tells us (chs. i.-vi.), with Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Great, must have died about B. C. 534, or at any rate before B. C. 529 the year of Cyrus' decease. His notices of Egypt belong to a date more than two centuries later. It is given him to see in vision a sort of sketch of the history of the world from his own time to the coming of the Kingdom of the Messiah; and in this "Apocalyptic Vision," or rather series of visions, the future of Egypt is placed before him, in some detail, during

a space of some century and a half, from about B. C. 323 to about B. C. 168.

It is scarcely necessary to say that the genuineness and authenticity of the entire Book of Daniel have been fiercely assailed, both in remote times and in our own day. But the arguments of the assailants have never been regarded as of any weight by the Church; and the Book has maintained its place in the Canon through all ecclesiastical ages and throughout Christendom. It is impossible in a volume like the present to enter into this great controversy, which has employed the pens of more than twenty critics of repute during the present century, and which cannot be said to have been set at rest even by the admirable labours of Auberlen, Hengstenberg, and Pusey. We shall here, of necessity, assume the genuineness and authenticity of the Book, and especially of the chapter (ch. xi.) which bears upon the history of Egypt; we shall regard it, not as a vaticinium post eventum— the composition of a nameless author in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes—but as the genuine utterance of Daniel himself in the year to which he assigns it— "the first year of Darius the Mede" (ch. xi. 1), or B. C. 538-7. As the prophecy is too long to be conveniently treated as a whole, we shall break it up into portions, and endeavour to show how far its various parts are confirmed or illustrated by profane authors.

"Now I will shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the

realm of Grecia. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will, and when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to the dominion which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those."-Dan. xi. 2—4.

This first section of the prophecy has no direct bearing upon Egypt. Its object is to bridge the interval between the date of the vision and the point at which the history of Egypt is to be taken up. The date of the vision is B. C. 538-7, the first year of Darius the Mede in Babylon, and the first of Cyrus (by whom Darius had been set up) in Persia. Egyptian history is to be taken up from B. C. 323, at which point, after a long period of subjection to Persia, Egypt became once more an independent and important kingdom. What are to be the main events, the great land-marks, of the interval? The angel who speaks to Daniel thus enumerates them. (1) There will be three kings in Persia, followed by a fourth richer and stronger than any of them, who will lead a great expedition into Greece. (2) A mighty king will stand up, greater apparently then even the Persian kings, who will "rule with great dominion, and do according to his will." (3) After this king has "stood up" for a while, his kingdom will be broken, "divided toward the four winds of heaven," not descending to his posterity, either as a whole, or in any of its fragments, but falling into the hands of "others beside those," i. e., of persons not his descendants. Now, profane history

2

relates1 that three kings ruled in Persia after Cyrus the Great, viz., Cambyses (from B. c. 529 to B. C. 522), Bardes or Smerdis (during seven months of B. C. 522), and Darius, the son of Hystaspes (from B. C. 521 to B. C. 486); and that these were then followed by Xerxes, the son of Darius, under whom Persia was at the height of its power and prosperity, until in his fifth year he "stirred up all against the realm of Grecia," and made that great expedition, which still remains one of the most marvellous events in the world's entire history. This expedition fell into B. C. 480, and was followed by a gradual diminution of Persian power, and by wars of no great moment, until, in B.C 335, a “mighty king" stood up, viz., Alexander the Great, who ruled a greater dominion than had been held by any previous monarch, since it reached from the Adriatic to the Sutlej, and from the Danube to Syene. The wide sovereignty and autocratic pride of Alexander are well expressed by the words "that shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will" (ver. 3); for Alexander brooked no restraint, and was practically a more absolute despot than any Persian king had ever been. At his death, as is well known, his kingdom was "broken up." Though he left behind him an illegitimate son, Hercules, and had also a posthumous child by Roxana, called Alexander, yet neither of these ever succeeded to any portion of his dominions. These fell at first to

1 See especially Herod., ii. 1; iii. 67, 88, confirmed by the Behistun inscription.

2 Herod. vii. 4 et seqq.

the ten generals, Ptolemy, Pithon, Antigonus, Eumenes, Leonnatus, Lysimachus, Menander, Asander, Philotas, Laomedon, and ultimately to Ptolemy, Seleucus, Antipater, Antigonus, Eumenes, Clitus, and Cassander.

"And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes [and he] shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion. And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement; but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm; but she shall be given up and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times." (DAN. xi. 5, 6.)

That the King of Egypt is meant by “the King of the South" might be presumed from the fact that Egypt formed the most southern portion of the dominions of Alexander; but it is placed beyond dispute or cavil by the mention of Egypt as the country to which the King of the South carried his captives, in verse 8. Profane history shows us that, after the death of Alexander (B. C. 323), Ptolemy Lagi, who had governed Egypt as Alexander's lieutenant, from its conquest (B. C. 332) assumed the regal authority, and after a little time the regal name, in that country, and ruled it from B. C. 323 to B. C. 283-a space of forty years. He is justly characterised as "strong," since he was able to enlarge his original

1 The mouths of the Indus are about parallel with the most southern portion of Egypt, but though visited by Alexander, they can hardly be regarded as within his permanent dominions.

"Grote, "History of Greece," vol. viii., p. 533; Heeren, "Manual of Ancient History," p. 249.