—
by
Most secular historians don’t really deny 1,2,3 are Babylon,Persia,Alexandian Greece/Seleucid Greece but more argue Daniel was composed in about 165 BCE after they fell.Of coarse I am of the belief that Daniel was a contemporary of Nebuchanezzar /Nevukhadnetzar(Heb.).In Babylonian Cuneiform he was known as Nebu-Kuduri-Usur II ,(605-562 bce) There was another Nebuchanezzar I who lived (1124-1104 BCE or maybe just his reign)
I am not going to attempt to make a case at least in this blog that Daniel and Mister Kuduri-Usur were real life friends so I am focusing on the fourth kingdom which is believed to be Rome.
I will tell you another thing is we will not be analyzing the Hebrew because there is no Hebrew ,Daniel 1-7 are in Aramaic and my Aramaic honestly well sucks,I know a little but not much.I have cross checked a half dozen English translations and Rashi’s comentary and it all check’s out and the English gets close enough.
40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron shatters and breaks everything—and just as iron smashes everything
so will it shatter and crush all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly potter’s clay and partly iron, so this will be a divided kingdom. It will have some of the strength of the iron, for you saw the iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes of the feet were partly iron.And partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 Just as you saw iron mixed with clay, people will mix with one
another, but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.(Tree of Life Version)
40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron shatters and breaks everything—and just as iron smashes everything, so will it shatter and crush all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly potter’s clay and partly iron, so this will be a divided kingdom. It will have some of the strength of the iron, for you saw the iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 Just as you saw iron mixed with clay, people will mix with one another, but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.
(KJV)
1.My first and obvious point would be Daniel 2:41 is the reference to a divided kingdom and Rome divided between east and west in 286 CE.This is over 400 years after the most secular perspectives on the writing of Daniel.Before the split of Rome the split of Israel and Judah were the only divided monarchy I have heard and the text is obviously not talking about the split of Israel and Judah.The divided kingdom is a clear reference to Rome in my opinion.
I think it is also true that the mixing of people is very Roman also although not as exlusive a Roman trait as the divided kingdom but none the less true.In ancient Rome it was typical that conquered peoples identified as Roman within 3 generations.
Default Re: Did the roman empire largely destroy cultures or did it manage to preserve them?
Pretty much, yes. The Romans worked through assimilation: the people they conquered were romanized over a period of roughly 75 years, after about 3 generations they would begin identifying as Roman rather than their prior culture. Remnants of these cultures would remain, like aspects that worked and fit well with the Roman system, which led to local variations of Roman culture. Nevertheless, these people were now Romans.
For instance the Persians and Mongols were known for strict rule of conquered people but for also allowing religious and cultural freedom and cultural indentity.The Greeks oftem promoted the worship of Greek gods but but divided there empire in subdivisions the locals could rule.For instance when Alexander conquered Persia instead of ruling Judea directly they put Judea under Syria and had Syria rule Israel.
In Daniel 2:40 it says this fourth kingdom shall be like iron and crush all others.Is there any argument that up to date of the climax of Rome the world had never seen an empire like Rome.No doubt ,no question that Rome was the worlds empire of empires.Later to come the Huns,Mongols and much later the British were great as well and whether greater than Rome at it’s height(about 30 bce-180 ce) is debatable.But there is no debate that at it’s height the world had not seen the likes of Rome.But was Rome brittle?It can be looked at that way if we see brittle as thin and Rome was spread thin.Rome bit off more than it could chew in the lands it conquered and it garrisons got spread thinner and thinner trying to protect more land.So Rome was very strong but was also very brittle to, in the sense that they had to spread garrisons thinner and thinner to protect their holdings.In the begining of the 5th century and let Britannica go and Goth’s began to chip away at the central European holding by the end of the fourth century.In that sense Rome got so brittle it finally cracked.
Being that the latest dating of Daniel is the 160’s Bce and Rome had just barely conqured Seleucid Greece nevermind even close to falling.Rome showed no signs of decline until the very late second century CE and did not fall until 476.The height of Rome was from 25 or 27 BCE to mid second century CE long long before even the latest dating of Daniel and Daniel 40-43 describes Rome just to well.The divided kingdom testimony is a devastating witness ,what empire of that size was ever divided.
Truth in Mikra 
Leave a comment