{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_44103/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_44103","id":"gutenberg_44103","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44103","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Daniel -- Commentaries","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n              _Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d. each vol._\n\n\n                         FIRST SERIES, 1887-8.\n\n  Colossians.\n    By A. MACLAREN, D.D.\n\n  St. Mark.\n    By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.\n\n  Genesis.\n    By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n  1 Samuel.\n    By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n  2 Samuel.\n    By the same Author.\n\n  Hebrews.\n    By Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D.\n\n\n                         SECOND SERIES, 1888-9.\n\n  Galatians.\n    By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.\n\n  The Pastoral Epistles.\n    By Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\n  Isaiah I.-XXXIX.\n    By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n  The Book of Revelation.\n    By Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.\n\n  1 Corinthians.\n    By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n  The Epistles of St. John.\n    By Rt. Rev. W. ALEXANDER, D.D.\n\n\n                         THIRD SERIES, 1889-90.\n\n  Judges and Ruth.\n    By R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n  Jeremiah.\n    By Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.\n\n  Isaiah XL.-LXVI.\n    By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n  St. Matthew.\n    By Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.\n\n  Exodus.\n    By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.\n\n  St. Luke.\n    By Rev. H. BURTON, M.A.\n\n\n                         FOURTH SERIES, 1890-1.\n\n  Ecclesiastes.\n    By Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.\n\n  St. James and St. Jude.\n    By Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\n  Proverbs.\n    By Rev. R. F. HORTON, D.D.\n\n  Leviticus.\n    By Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.\n\n  The Gospel of St. John.\n    By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n  The Acts of the Apostles.\n    By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n\n                         FIFTH SERIES, 1891-2.\n\n  The Psalms.\n    By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n  1 and 2 Thessalonians.\n    By JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\n  The Book of Job.\n    By R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n  Ephesians.\n    By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.\n\n  The Gospel of St. John,\n    By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n  The Acts of the Apostles.\n    By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n\n                         SIXTH SERIES, 1892-3.\n\n  1 Kings.\n    By Ven. Archdeacon FARRAR.\n\n  Philippians.\n    By Principal RAINY, D.D.\n\n  Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.\n    By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\n  Joshua.\n    By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n  The Psalms.\n    By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n  The Epistles of St. Peter.\n    By Prof. RAWSON LUMBY, D.D.\n\n\n                        SEVENTH SERIES, 1893-4.\n\n  2 Kings.\n    By Ven. Archdeacon FARRAR.\n\n  Romans.\n    By H. C. G. MOULE, M.A.\n\n  The Books of Chronicles.\n    By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, M.A.\n\n  2 Corinthians.\n   By JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\n  Numbers.\n    By R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n  The Psalms.\n    By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. III.\n\n\n                         EIGHTH SERIES, 1895-6.\n\n  Daniel.\n    By Ven. Archdeacon FARRAR.\n\n  The Book of Jeremiah.\n    By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, M.A.\n\n  Deuteronomy.\n    By Prof. ANDREW HARPER, B.D.\n\n  The Song of Solomon and Lamentations.\n    By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\n  Ezekiel.\n    By Prof. JOHN SKINNER, M.A.\n\n  The Minor Prophets.\n    By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Two Vols.\n\n\n\n\n                           THE BOOK OF DANIEL\n\n\n\n\n                                   BY\n                       F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S.\n        LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; ARCHDEACON OF\n                              WESTMINSTER\n\n\n\n\n\n                                =London=\n                          HODDER AND STOUGHTON\n                          27, PATERNOSTER ROW\n\n                                MDCCCXCV\n\n\n\n\n    _Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\n                                 PART I\n\n                             _INTRODUCTION_\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n\n                                                     PAGE\n  THE HISTORIC EXISTENCE OF THE PROPHET DANIEL          3\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n\n  GENERAL SURVEY OF THE BOOK                           13\n\n     1. THE LANGUAGE                                   13\n\n     2. UNITY                                          24\n\n     3. GENERAL TONE                                   27\n\n     4. STYLE                                          29\n\n     5. STANDPOINT OF ITS AUTHOR                       31\n\n     6. MORAL ELEMENT                                  34\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n\n  PECULIARITIES OF THE HISTORICAL SECTION              39\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n\n  GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK                        63\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n\n  THE THEOLOGY OF THE BOOK                             67\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI\n\n  PECULIARITIES OF THE APOCALYPTIC AND PROPHETIC\n  SECTION OF THE BOOK                                  71\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII\n\n  INTERNAL EVIDENCE                                    78\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII\n\n  EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE GENUINENESS UNCERTAIN\n  AND INADEQUATE                                       88\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IX\n\n  EXTERNAL EVIDENCE AND RECEPTION INTO THE\n  CANON                                                98\n\n\n                               CHAPTER X\n\n  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION                              113\n\n\n                                PART II\n\n                  _COMMENTARY ON THE HISTORIC SECTION_\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n\n  THE PRELUDE                                         123\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n\n  THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES                   141\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n\n  THE IDOL OF GOLD, AND THE FAITHFUL THREE            167\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n\n  THE BABYLONIAN CEDAR, AND THE STRICKEN DESPOT       184\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n\n  THE FIERY INSCRIPTION                               203\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI\n\n  STOPPING THE MOUTHS OF LIONS                        218\n\n\n                                PART III\n\n                  _THE PROPHETIC SECTION OF THE BOOK_\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n\n  VISION OF THE FOUR WILD BEASTS                      233\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n\n  THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT                             252\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n\n  THE SEVENTY WEEKS                                   268\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n\n  INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCLUDING VISION               292\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n\n  AN ENIGMATIC PROPHECY PASSING INTO DETAILS OF\n  THE REIGN OF ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES                    299\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI\n\n  THE EPILOGUE                                        319\n\n\n                                APPENDIX\n\n  APPROXIMATE CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES                    333\n\n  GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE LAGID\u00c6, PTOLEMIES,\n  AND SELEUCID\u00c6                                       334\n\n\n\n\n                         AUTHORITIES CONSULTED\n\n                       COMMENTARIES AND TREATISES\n\n\nThe chief Rabbinic Commentaries were those of Rashi (\u2020 1105); Abn\nEzra (\u2020 1167); Kimchi (\u2020 1240); Abrabanel (\u2020 1507).[1]\n\nThe chief Patristic Commentary is that by St. Jerome. Fragments\nare preserved of other Commentaries by Origen, Hippolytus, Ephr\u00e6m\nSyrus, Julius Africanus, Theodoret, Athanasius, Basil, Eusebius,\nPolychronius, etc. (Mai, _Script. Vet. Nov. Coll._, i.).\n\nThe Scholastic Commentary attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas is spurious.\n\nThe chief Commentaries of the Reformation period are those by:--\n\nLuther, _Auslegung d. Proph. Dan._, 1530-46 (_Opp. Germ._, vi., ed.\nWalch.)\n\n\u0152colampadius, _In Dan. libri duo_. Basle, 1530.\n\nMelancthon, _Comm. in Dan._ Wittenburg, 1543.\n\nCalvin, _Pr\u00e6lect. in Dan._ Geneva, 1563.\n\nModern Commentaries are numerous; among them we may mention those by:--\n\nNewton, _Observations upon the Prophecies_. London, 1733.\n\nBertholdt, _Daniel_. Erlangen, 1806-8.\n\nRosenm\u00fcller, _Scholia_. 1832.\n\nH\u00e4vernick. 1832 and 1838.\n\nHengstenberg. 1831.\n\nThere are Commentaries by Von Lengerke, 1835; Maurer, 1838; Hitzig,\n1850; Ewald, 1867; Kliefoth, 1868; Keil, 1869; Kranichfeld,\n1868; Kamphausen, 1868; Meinhold (_Kurzgefasster Kommentar_),\n1889; Auberlen, 1857; Archdeacon Rose and Prof. J. M. Fuller\n(_Speaker's Commentary_), 1876; Rev. H. J. Deane (Bishop Ellicott's\n_Commentary_), 1884; Z\u00f6ckler (Lange's _Bibelwerk_), 1889; A. A. Bevan\n(_Cambridge_), 1893; Meinhold, _Beitr\u00e4ge_, 1888.\n\nThe latest Commentary which has appeared is that by Hauptpastor\nBehrmann, in the _Handkommentar z. Alten Testament._ G\u00f6ttingen, 1894.\n\nDiscussions in the various Introductions (_Einleitungen_, etc.) by\nBleek, De Wette, Keil, St\u00e4helin, Reuss, Cornely, Dr. S. Davidson,\nKleinert, Cornill, K\u00f6nig, etc.\n\n\n                            LIVES OF DANIEL\n\nPseudo-Epiphanius, _Opera_, ii. 243.\n\nH. J. Deane, _Daniel_ (Men of the Bible). 1892.\n\n\n                    THERE ARE ARTICLES ON DANIEL IN\n\nWiner's _Realw\u00f6rterbuch_, Second Edition.\n\nDelitzsch, in Herzog's _Real-Encyclop\u00e4die_.\n\nGraf, in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_, i. 564.\n\nBishop Westcott, in Dr. W. Smith's _Bible Dictionary_, New Edition.\n1893.\n\nHamburger, _Real-Encyclop\u00e4die_, ii., _s.v._ \"Geheimlehre,\" p. 265;\n_s.vv._ \"Daniel,\" pp. 223-225; and _Heiliges Schriftthum_.\n\n\n                               TREATISES\n\nRussel Martineau, _Theological Review_. 1865.\n\nProf. Margoliouth, _The Expositor_. April 1890.\n\nProf. J. M. Fuller, _The Expositor_, Third Series, vols. i., ii.\n\nT. K. Cheyne, _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_, vi. 803.\n\nProf. Sayce, _The Higher Criticism and the Monuments_. 1894.\n\nProf. S. R. Driver, _Introduction to the Literature of the Old\nTestament_, pp. 458-483. 1891.\n\nProf. S. Leathes, in _Book by Book_, pp. 241-251.\n\nC. von Orelli, _Alttestamentliche Weissagung_, p. 454. Wien, 1882.\n\nMeinhold, _Die Geschichtlichen Hagiographen_ (Strack and Z\u00f6ckler,\n_Kurzgefasster Kommentar_, 1889).\n\nMeinhold, _Erkl\u00e4rung des Buches Daniels_. 1889.\n\n\n                      TREATISES OR DISCUSSIONS BY\n\nDr. Pusey, _Daniel the Prophet_. 1864.\n\nT. R. Birks, _The Later Visions of Daniel_. 1846.\n\nEllicott, _Hor\u00e6 Apocalyptic\u00e6_. 1844.\n\nTregelles, _Remarks on the Prophetic Visions of Daniel_. 1852.\n\nHilgenfeld, _Die Propheten Ezra u. Daniel_. 1863.\n\nBaxmann, _Stud. u. Krit._, iii. 489 ff. 1863.\n\nDesprez, _Daniel_. 1865.\n\nHofmann, _Weissagung und Erf\u00fcllung_, i. 276-316.\n\nKuenen, _Prophets and Prophecy in Israel_, E. Tr. 1877.\n\nEwald, _Die Propheten des Alten Bundes_, iii. 298. 1868.\n\nHilgenfeld, _Die j\u00fcdische Apokalyptic_. 1857.\n\nLenormant, _La Divination chez les Chaldeans_. 1875.\n\nFabre d'Envieu, _Le livre du Proph\u00e8te Daniel_. 1888.\n\nHebbelyuck, _De auctoritate libr. Danielis_. 1887.\n\nK\u00f6hler, _Bibl. Geschichte_. 1893.\n\n\n                       INSCRIPTIONS AND MONUMENTS\n\nBabylonian, Persian, and Median inscriptions bearing on the Book of\nDaniel are given by:--\n\nSchrader, _Keilinschriften und d. A. T._, E. Tr., 1885-88; and in\n_Records of the Past_. See too _Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum_.\n\nSayce, _The Higher Criticism_, pp. 497-537.\n\nThese inscriptions have been referred to also by Cornill, Nestle,\nN\u00f6ldeke, Lagarde, etc.\n\n\n                       HISTORIES AND OTHER BOOKS\n\nSketches and fragments of many ancient historians:--\n\nJosephus, _Antiquitates Judaic\u00e6_, ll. x., xi., xii.\n\nThe Books of Maccabees.\n\nPrideaux, _Connection of the Old and New Testaments_, ed. Oxford. 1828.\n\nEwald, _Gesch. des Volkes Israel_. 1843-50.\n\nGr\u00e4tz, _Gesch. der Juden_, Second Edition. 1863.\n\nJost, _Gesch. d. Judenthums und seinen Sekten_, i. 90-116. Leipzig,\n1857.\n\nHerzfeld, _Gesch. des Volkes Israel_, ii. 416. 1863.\n\nVan Oort, _Bible for Young People_, E. Tr. 1877.\n\nKittel, _Gesch. d. Hebr\u00e4er_, ii. 1892.\n\nSch\u00fcrer, _Gesch. d. j\u00fcdischen Volkes_. Leipzig, 1890.\n\nJahn, _Hebrew Commonwealth_, E. Tr. 1828.\n\nDroysen, _Gesch. d. Hellenismus_, ii. 211.\n\nE. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alterthums_, i.\n\n\n                           SPECIAL TREATISES\n\nDelitzsch, _Messianische Weissagangen_. Leipzig, 1890.\n\nRiehm, _Die Messianische Weissagung_. Gotha, 1875.\n\nKnabenbauer, _Comment in Daniel. prophet., Lament., et Baruch_. 1891.\n\nKuenen, _Religion of Israel_, E. Tr. 1874.\n\nBludau, _De Alex. interpe. Danielis indole_. 1891.\n\nN\u00f6ldeke, _D. Alttest. Literatur_. 1868.\n\nFraidl, _Exegese d. 70 Wochen Daniels_. 1883.\n\nMenken, _Die Monarchienbild_. 1887.\n\nKamphausen, _Das Buch Daniel in die neuere Geschichtsforschung_.\nLeipzig, 1893.\n\nLennep, _De Zeventig Jaarweken van Daniel_. Utrecht, 1888.\n\nDr. M. Jo\u00ebl, _Notizen zum Buche Daniel_. Breslau, 1873.\n\nDerenbourg, _Les Mots grecs dans le Livre biblique de Daniel_.\nM\u00e9langes Graux, 1888.\n\nCornill, _Die Siebzig Jahrwochen Daniels_. 1889.\n\nWolf, _Die Siebzig Wochen Daniels_. 1859.\n\nSanday, _Inspiration_ (Bampton Lectures). 1894.\n\nSayce, _Hibbert Lectures_. 1887.\n\nRoszmann, _Die Makkabeische Erhebung_.\n\nJ. F. Hoffmann, _Antiochus IV_. (_Epiphanes_). 1873.\n\n_Speaker's Commentary_ on Tobit, 1, 2 Maccabees, etc. 1888.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[1] The Commentary which passes as that of Saadia the Gaon is said to\nbe spurious. His genuine Commentary only exists in manuscript.\n\n\n\n\n                                 PART I\n\n                             _INTRODUCTION_\n\n\n     \u1f18\u03b3\u1f7c \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f30\n     \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c7\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n     \u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd.--JOSEPHUS, _Antt._, X. ii. 7.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n\n             _THE HISTORIC EXISTENCE OF THE PROPHET DANIEL_\n\n     \"Trothe is the hiest thinge a man may kepe.\"--CHAUCER.\n\n\nWe propose in the following pages to examine the Book of the Prophet\nDaniel by the same general methods which have been adopted in other\nvolumes of the Expositor's Bible. It may well happen that the\nconclusions adopted as regards its origin and its place in the Sacred\nVolume will not command the assent of all our readers. On the other\nhand, we may feel a reasonable confidence that, even if some are\nunable to accept the views at which we have arrived, and which we have\nhere endeavoured to present with fairness, they will still read them\nwith interest, as opinions which have been calmly and conscientiously\nformed, and to which the writer has been led by strong conviction.\n\nAll Christians will acknowledge the sacred and imperious duty of\nsacrificing every other consideration to the unbiassed acceptance of\nthat which we regard as truth. Further than this our readers will\nfind much to elucidate the Book of Daniel chapter by chapter, apart\nfrom any questions which affect its authorship or age.\n\nBut I should like to say on the threshold that, though I am compelled\nto regard the Book of Daniel as a work which, in its present form,\nfirst saw the light in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, and though I\nbelieve that its six magnificent opening chapters were never meant\nto be regarded in any other light than that of moral and religious\n_Haggadoth_, yet no words of mine can exaggerate the value which\nI attach to this part of our Canonical Scriptures. The Book, as\nwe shall see, has exercised a powerful influence over Christian\nconduct and Christian thought. Its right to a place in the Canon is\nundisputed and indisputable, and there is scarcely a single book\nof the Old Testament which can be made more richly \"profitable\nfor teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in\nrighteousness, that the man of God may be complete, completely\nfurnished unto every good work.\" Such religious lessons are eminently\nsuitable for the aims of the Expositor's Bible. They are not in the\nslightest degree impaired by those results of arch\u00e6ological discovery\nand \"criticism\" which are now almost universally accepted by the\nscholars of the Continent, and by many of our chief English critics.\nFinally unfavourable to the authenticity, they are yet in no way\nderogatory to the preciousness of this Old Testament Apocalypse.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe first question which we must consider is, \"What is known about\nthe Prophet Daniel?\"\n\nI. If we accept as historical the particulars narrated of him in\nthis Book, it is clear that few Jews have ever risen to so splendid\nan eminence. Under four powerful kings and conquerors, of three\ndifferent nationalities and dynasties, he held a position of high\nauthority among the haughtiest aristocracies of the ancient world. At\na very early age he was not only a satrap, but the Prince and Prime\nMinister over _all_ the satraps in Babylonia and Persia; not only a\nMagian, but the Head Magian, and Chief Governor over all the wise\nmen of Babylon. Not even Joseph, as the chief ruler over all the\nhouse of Pharaoh, had anything like the extensive sway exercised by\nthe Daniel of this Book. He was placed by Nebuchadrezzar \"over the\nwhole province of Babylon\";[2] under Darius he was President of the\nBoard of Three to \"whom all the satraps\" sent their accounts;[3] and\nhe was continued in office and prosperity under Cyrus the Persian.[4]\n\nII. It is natural, then, that we should turn to the monuments and\ninscriptions of the Babylonian, Persian, and Median Empires to see if\nany mention can be found of so prominent a ruler. But hitherto neither\nhas his name been discovered, nor the faintest trace of his existence.\n\nIII. If we next search other non-Biblical sources of information, we\nfind much respecting him in the Apocrypha--\"The Song of the Three\nChildren,\" \"The Story of Susanna,\" and \"Bel and the Dragon.\" But\nthese additions to the Canonical Books are avowedly valueless for any\nhistoric purpose. They are romances, in which the vehicle of fiction is\nused, in a manner which at all times was popular in Jewish literature,\nto teach lessons of faith and conduct by the example of eminent\nsages or saints.[5] The few other fictitious fragments preserved\nby Fabricius have not the smallest importance.[6] Josephus, beyond\nmentioning that Daniel and his three companions were of the family\nof King Zedekiah,[7] adds nothing appreciable to our information. He\nnarrates the story of the Book, and in doing so adopts a somewhat\napologetic tone, as though he specially declined to vouch for its\nhistoric exactness. For he says: \"Let no one blame me for writing down\neverything of this nature, as I find it in our ancient books: for as to\nthat matter, I have plainly assured those that think me defective in\nany such point, or complain of my management, and have told them, in\nthe beginning of this history, that I intended to do no more than to\ntranslate the Hebrew books into the Greek language, and promised them\nto explain these facts, without adding anything to them of my own, or\ntaking anything away from them.\"[8]\n\nIV. In the Talmud, again, we find nothing historical. Daniel is\nalways mentioned as a champion against idolatry, and his wisdom is\nso highly esteemed, that, \"if all the wise men of the heathen,\" we\nare told, \"were on one side, and Daniel on the other, Daniel would\nstill prevail.\"[9] He is spoken of as an example of God's protection\nof the innocent, and his three daily prayers are taken as our rule\nof life.[10] To him are applied the verses of Lam. iii. 55-57: \"I\ncalled upon Thy name, O Lord, out of the lowest pit.... Thou drewest\nnear in the day that I called: Thou saidst, Fear not. O Lord, Thou\nhast pleaded the causes of my soul; Thou hast redeemed my life.\"\nWe are assured that he was of Davidic descent; obtained permission\nfor the return of the exiles; survived till the rebuilding of the\nTemple; lived to a great age, and finally died in Palestine.[11]\nRav even went so far as to say, \"If there be any like the Messiah\namong the living, it is our Rabbi the Holy: if among the dead,\nit is Daniel.\"[12] In the _Avoth_ of Rabbi Nathan it is stated\nthat Daniel exercised himself in benevolence by endowing brides,\nfollowing funerals, and giving alms. One of the Apocryphal legends\nrespecting him has been widely spread. It tells us that, when he\nwas a second time cast into the den of lions under Cyrus, and was\nfasting from lack of food, the Prophet Habakkuk was taken by a hair\nof his head and carried by the angel of the Lord to Babylon, to give\nto Daniel the dinner which he had prepared for his reapers.[13] It\nis with reference to this _Haggada_ that in the catacombs Daniel is\nrepresented in the lions' den standing naked between two lions--an\nemblem of the soul between sin and death--and that a youth with a pot\nof food is by his side.\n\nThere is a Persian apocalypse of Daniel translated by Merx (_Archiv_,\ni. 387), and there are a few worthless Mohammedan legends about him\nwhich are given in D'Herbelot's _Biblioth\u00e8que orientale_. They only\nserve to show how widely extended was the reputation which became\nthe nucleus of strange and miraculous stories. As in the case of\nPythagoras and Empedocles, they indicate the deep reverence which the\nideal of his character inspired. They are as the fantastic clouds\nwhich gather about the loftiest mountain peaks. In later days he\nseems to have been comparatively forgotten.[14]\n\nThese references would not, however, suffice to prove Daniel's\n_historical_ existence. They might merely result from the literal\nacceptance of the story narrated in the Book. From the name \"Daniel,\"\nwhich is by no means a common one, and means \"Judge of God,\" nothing\ncan be learnt. It is only found in three other instances.[15]\n\nTurning to the Old Testament itself, we have reason for surprise both\nin its allusions and its silences. One only of the sacred writers\nrefers to Daniel, and that is Ezekiel. In one passage (xxviii. 3)\nthe Prince of Tyrus is apostrophised in the words, \"_Behold, thou\nart wiser than Daniel_; there is no secret that they can hide from\nthee.\" In the other (xiv. 14, 20) the word of the Lord declares to\nthe guilty city, that \"though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and\nJob, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their\nrighteousness\"; \"they shall deliver neither son nor daughter.\"[16]\n\nThe last words may be regarded as a general allusion, and therefore\nwe may pass over the circumstance that Daniel--who was undoubtedly\na eunuch in the palace of Babylon, and who is often pointed to as a\nfulfilment of the stern prophecy of Isaiah to Hezekiah[17]--could\nnever have had either son or daughter.\n\nBut in other respects the allusion is surprising.\n\ni. It was very unusual among the Jews to elevate their contemporaries\nto such a height of exaltation, and it is indeed startling that\nEzekiel should thus place his youthful contemporary on such a\npinnacle as to unite his name to those of Noah the antediluvian\npatriarch and the mysterious man of Uz.\n\nii. We might, with Theodoret, Jerome, and Kimchi, account for the\nmention of Daniel's name at all in this connection by the peculiar\ncircumstances of his life;[18] but there is little probability in the\nsuggestions of bewildered commentators as to the reason why his name\nshould be placed _between_ those of Noah and Job. It is difficult,\nwith H\u00e4vernick, to recognise any _climax_ in the order;[19] nor can\nit be regarded as quite satisfactory to say, with Delitzsch, that\nthe collocation is due to the fact that \"as Noah was a righteous man\nof the old world, and Job of the ideal world, Daniel represented\nimmediately the contemporaneous world.\"[20] If Job was a purely ideal\ninstance of exemplary goodness, why may not Daniel have been the same?\n\nTo some critics the allusion has appeared so strange that they have\nreferred it to an imaginary Daniel who had lived at the Court of\nNineveh during the Assyrian exile;[21] or to some mythic hero who\nbelonged to ancient days--perhaps, like Melchizedek, a contemporary\nof the ruin of the cities of the Plain.[22] Ewald tries to urge\nsomething for the former conjecture; yet neither for it nor for the\nlatter is there any tittle of real evidence.[23] This, however, would\nnot be decisive against the hypothesis, since in 1 Kings iv. 31 we\nhave references to men of pre-eminent wisdom respecting whom no\nbreath of tradition has come down to us.[24]\n\niii. But if we accept the Book of Daniel as literal history, the\nallusion of Ezekiel becomes still more difficult to explain; for\nDaniel must have been not only a contemporary of the prophet of the\nExile, but a very youthful one. We are told--a difficulty to which we\nshall subsequently allude--that Daniel was taken captive in the third\nyear of Jehoiakim (Dan. i. 1), about the year B.C. 606. Ignatius\nsays that he was twelve years old when he foiled the elders; and the\nnarrative shows that he could not have been much older when taken\ncaptive.[25] If Ezekiel's prophecy was uttered B.C. 584, Daniel at\nthat time could only have been twenty-two: if it was uttered as late\nas B.C. 572,[26] Daniel would still have been only thirty-four, and\ntherefore little more than a youth in Jewish eyes. It is undoubtedly\nsurprising that among Orientals, who regard age as the chief passport\nto wisdom, a living youth should be thus canonised between the\nPatriarch of the Deluge and the Prince of Uz.\n\niv. Admitting that this pinnacle of eminence may have been due to\nthe peculiar splendour of Daniel's career, it becomes the less easy\nto account for the total silence respecting him in the other books\nof the Old Testament--in the Prophets who were contemporaneous with\nthe Exile and its close, like Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi; and\nin the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which give us the details of the\nReturn. No post-exilic prophets seem to know anything of the Book of\nDaniel.[27] Their expectations of Israel's future are very different\nfrom his.[28] The silence of Ezra is specially astonishing. It has\noften been conjectured that it was Daniel who showed to Cyrus the\nprophecies of Isaiah.[29] Certainly it is stated that he held the\nvery highest position in the Court of the Persian King; yet neither\ndoes Ezra mention his existence, nor does Nehemiah--himself a high\nfunctionary in the Court of Artaxerxes--refer to his illustrious\npredecessor. Daniel outlived the first return of the exiles under\nZerubbabel, and he did not avail himself of this opportunity to\nrevisit the land and desolate sanctuary of his fathers which he\nloved so well.[30] We might have assumed that patriotism so burning\nas his would not have preferred to stay at Babylon, or at Shushan,\nwhen the priests and princes of his people were returning to the\nHoly City. Others of great age faced the perils of the Restoration;\nand if he stayed behind to be of greater use to his countrymen, we\ncannot account for the fact that he is not distantly alluded to in\nthe record which tells how \"the chief of the fathers, _with all\nthose whose spirit God had raised_, rose up to go to build the House\nof the Lord which is in Jerusalem.\"[31] That the difficulty was felt\nis shown by the Mohammedan legend that Daniel _did_ return with\nEzra,[32] and that he received the office of Governor of Syria, from\nwhich country he went back to Susa, where his tomb is still yearly\nvisited by crowds of adoring pilgrims.\n\nv. If we turn to the New Testament, the name of Daniel only occurs in\nthe reference to \"the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel\nthe prophet.\"[33] The Book of Revelation does not name him, but is\nprofoundly influenced by the Book of Daniel both in its form and in\nthe symbols which it adopts.[34]\n\nvi. In the Apocrypha Daniel is passed over in complete silence among\nthe lists of Hebrew heroes enumerated by Jesus the son of Sirach. We\nare even told that \"neither was there a man born like unto Joseph, a\nleader of his brethren, a stay of the people\" (Ecclus. xlix. 15). This\nis the more singular because not only are the achievements of Daniel\nunder four heathen potentates greater than those of Joseph under one\nPharaoh, but also several of the stories of Daniel at once remind us of\nthe story of Joseph, and even appear to have been written with silent\nreference to the youthful Hebrew and his fortunes as an Egyptian slave\nwho was elevated to be governor of the land of his exile.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[2] Dan. ii. 48.\n\n[3] Dan. v. 29, vi. 2.\n\n[4] Dan. vi. 28. There is a Daniel of the sons of Ithamar in Ezra\nviii. 2, and among those who sealed the covenant in Neh. x. 6.\n\n[5] For a full account of the _Agada_ (also called _Agadtha_ and\n_Haggada_), I must refer the reader to Hamburger's _Real-Encyklop\u00e4die\nf\u00fcr Bibel und Talmud_, ii. 19-27, 921-934. The first two forms of the\nwords are Aramaic; the third was a Hebrew form in use among the Jews\nin Babylonia. The word is derived from \u05e0\u05b8\u05d2\u05b7\u05d3, \"to say\" or \"explain.\"\n_Halacha_ was the rule of religious praxis, a sort of Directorium\nJudaicum: _Haggada_ was the result of free religious reflection. See\nfurther Strack, _Einl. in den Thalmud_, iv. 122.\n\n[6] Fabricius, _Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test._, i. 1124.\n\n[7] Jos., _Antt._, X. xi. 7. But Pseudo-Epiphanius (_De Vit. Dan._,\nx.) says: \u0393\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03cc\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. So too the\n_Midrash_ on Ruth, 7.\n\n[8] Jos., _Antt._, X. x. 6.\n\n[9] _Yoma_, f. 77.\n\n[10] _Berach\u00f4th_, f. 31.\n\n[11] _Sanhedrin_, f. 93. _Midrash Rabba_ on Ruth, 7, etc., quoted by\nHamburger, _Real-Encyclop\u00e4die_, i. 225.\n\n[12] _Kiddushin_, f. 72, 6; Hershon, _Genesis acc. to the Talmud_, p.\n471.\n\n[13] Bel and the Dragon, 33-39. It seems to be an old Midrashic\nlegend. It is quoted by Dorotheus and Pseudo-Epiphanius, and referred\nto by some of the Fathers. Eusebius supposes another Habakkuk and\nanother Daniel; but \"anachronisms, literary extravagances, or\nlegendary character are obvious on the face of such narratives. Such\nfaults as these, though valid against any pretensions to the rank\nof authentic history, do not render the stories less effective as\npieces of Haggadic satire, or less interesting as preserving vestiges\nof a cycle of popular legends relating to Daniel\" (Rev. C. J. Ball,\n_Speaker's Commentary_, on Apocrypha, ii. 350).\n\n[14] H\u00f6ttinger, _Hist. Orientalis_, p. 92.\n\n[15] Ezra viii. 2; Neh. x. 6. In 1 Chron. iii. 1 Daniel is an\nalternative name for David's son Chileab--perhaps a clerical error.\nIf so, the names Daniel, Mishael, Azariah, and Hananiah are only\nfound in the two post-exilic books, whence Kamphausen supposes them\nto have been borrowed by the writer.\n\n[16] No valid arguments can be adduced in favour of Winckler's\nsuggestion that Ezek. xxviii. 1-10, xiv. 14-20, are late\ninterpolations. In these passages the name is spelt \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc; not,\nas in our Book, \u05d3\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05b5\u05d0\u05dc.\n\n[17] Isa. xxxix. 7.\n\n[18] See Rosenm\u00fcller, _Scholia_, _ad loc._\n\n[19] _Ezek._, p. 207.\n\n[20] Herzog, _R. E._, _s.v._\n\n[21] Ewald, _Proph. d. Alt. Bund._, ii. 560; De Wette, _Einleit._, \u00a7\n253.\n\n[22] So Von Lengerke, _Dan._, xciii. ff.; Hitzig, _Dan._, viii.\n\n[23] He is followed by Bunsen, _Gott in der Gesch._, i. 514.\n\n[24] Reuss, _Heil. Schrift._, p. 570.\n\n[25] Ignat., _Ad Magnes_, 3 (Long Revision: see Lightfoot, ii., \u00a7\nii., p. 749). So too in _Ps. Mar. ad Ignat._, 3. Lightfoot thinks\nthat this is a transference from Solomon (_l.c._, p. 727).\n\n[26] See Ezek. xxix. 17.\n\n[27] See Zech. ii. 6-10; Ezek. xxxvii. 9, etc.\n\n[28] See Hag. ii. 6-9, 20-23; Zech. ii. 5-17, iii. 8-10; Mal. iii. 1.\n\n[29] Ezra (i. 1) does not mention the striking prophecies of the\nlater Isaiah (xliv. 28, xlv. 1), but refers to Jeremiah only (xxv.\n12, xxix. 10).\n\n[30] Dan. x. 1-18, vi. 10.\n\n[31] Ezra i. 5.\n\n[32] D'Herbelot, _l.c._\n\n[33] Matt. xxiv. 15; Mark xiii. 14. There can be of course no\ncertainty that the \"spoken of by Daniel the prophet\" is not the\ncomment of the Evangelist.\n\n[34] See Elliott, _Hor\u00e6 Apocalyptic\u00e6_, _passim_.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n\n                      _GENERAL SURVEY OF THE BOOK_\n\n\n                            1. THE LANGUAGE\n\nUnable to learn anything further respecting the professed author of\nthe Book of Daniel, we now turn to the Book itself. In this section\nI shall merely give a general sketch of its main external phenomena,\nand shall chiefly pass in review those characteristics which, though\nthey have been used as arguments respecting the age in which it\noriginated, are not absolutely irreconcilable with the supposition of\n_any_ date between the termination of the Exile (B.C. 536) and the\ndeath of Antiochus Epiphanes (B.C. 164).\n\nI. First we notice the fact that there is an interchange of the first\nand third person. In chapters i.-vi. Daniel is mainly spoken of in\nthe third person: in chapters vii.-xii. he speaks mainly in the first.\n\nKranichfeld tries to account for this by the supposition that\nin chapters i.-vi. we practically have extracts from Daniel's\ndiaries,[35] whereas in the remainder of the Book he describes his\nown visions. The point cannot be much insisted upon, but the mention\nof his own high praises (_e.g._, in such passages as vi. 4) is\nperhaps hardly what we should have expected.\n\nII. Next we observe that the Book of Daniel, like the Book of Ezra[36]\nis written partly in the sacred Hebrew, partly in the vernacular\nAramaic, which is often, but erroneously, called Chaldee.[37]\n\nThe first section (i. 1-ii. 4_a_) is in Hebrew. The language changes\nto Aramaic after the words, \"Then spake the Chaldeans to the king _in\nSyriac_\" (ii. 4_a_);[38] and this is continued to vii. 28. The eighth\nchapter begins with the words, \"In the third year of the reign of\nKing Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel\"; and\nhere the Hebrew is resumed, and is continued till the end of the Book.\n\nThe question at once arises why the two languages were used in the\nsame Book.\n\nIt is easy to understand that, during the course of the seventy years'\nExile, many of the Jews became practically bilingual, and would be able\nto write with equal facility in one language or in the other.\n\nThis circumstance, then, has no bearing on the date of the Book. Down\nto the Maccabean age some books continued to be written in Hebrew.\nThese books must have found readers. Hence the knowledge of Hebrew\ncannot have died away so completely as has been supposed. The notion\nthat after the return from the Exile Hebrew was at once superseded\nby Aramaic is untenable. Hebrew long continued to be the language\nnormally spoken at Jerusalem (Neh. xiii. 24), and the Jews did not\nbring back Aramaic with them to Palestine, but found it there.[39]\n\nBut it is not clear why the linguistic _divisions_ in the Book were\nadopted. Auberlen says that, after the introduction, the section\nii. 4_a_-vii. 28 was written in Chaldee, because it describes the\ndevelopment of the power of the world from a world-historic point\nof view; and that the remainder of the Book was written in Hebrew,\nbecause it deals with the development of the world-powers in their\nrelation to Israel the people of God.[40] There is very little to\nbe said in favour of a structure so little obvious and so highly\nartificial. A simpler solution of the difficulty would be that which\naccounts for the use of Chaldee by saying that it was adopted in\nthose parts which involved the introduction of Aramaic documents.\nThis, however, would not account for its use in chap. vii., which\nis a chapter of visions in which Hebrew might have been naturally\nexpected as the vehicle of prophecy. Strack and Meinhold think that\nthe Aramaic and Hebrew parts are of different origin. K\u00f6nig supposes\nthat the Aramaic sections were meant to indicate special reference to\nthe Syrians and Antiochus.[41] Some critics have thought it possible\nthat the Aramaic sections were once written in Hebrew. That the text\nof Daniel has not been very carefully kept becomes clear from the\nliberties to which it was subjected by the Septuagint translators. If\nthe Hebrew of Jer. x. 11 (a verse which only exists in Aramaic) has\nbeen lost, it is not inconceivable that the same may have happened to\nthe Hebrew of a section of Daniel.[42]\n\nThe Talmud throws no light on the question. It only says that--\n\ni. \"The men of the Great Synagogue wrote\"[43]--by which is perhaps\nmeant that they \"edited\"--\"the Book of Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor\nProphets, the Book of Daniel, and the Book of Ezra\";[44] and that--\n\nii. \"The Chaldee passages in the Book of Ezra and the Book of Daniel\n_defile the hands_.\"[45]\n\nThe first of these two passages is merely an assertion that the\npreservation, the arrangement, and the admission into the Canon of\nthe books mentioned was due to the body of scribes and priests--a\nvery shadowy and unhistorical body--known as the Great Synagogue.[46]\n\nThe second passage sounds startling, but is nothing more than an\nauthoritative declaration that the Chaldee sections of Daniel and\nEzra are still parts of Holy Scripture, though not written in the\nsacred language.\n\nIt is a standing rule of the Talmudists that _All Holy Scripture\ndefiles the hands_--even the long-disputed Books of Ecclesiastes and\nCanticles.[47] Lest any should misdoubt the sacredness of the Chaldee\nsections, they are expressly included in the rule. It seems to have\noriginated thus: The eatables of the heave offerings were kept in close\nproximity to the scroll of the Law, for both were considered equally\nsacred. If a mouse or rat happened to nibble either, the offerings and\nthe books became defiled, and therefore defiled the hands that touched\nthem.[48] To guard against this hypothetical defilement it was decided\nthat _all_ handling of the Scriptures should be followed by ceremonial\nablutions. To say that the Chaldee chapters \"defile the hands\" is the\nRabbinic way of declaring their Canonicity.\n\nPerhaps nothing certain can be inferred from the philological\nexamination either of the Hebrew or of the Chaldee portions of the\nBook; but they seem to indicate a date not earlier than the age of\nAlexander (B.C. 333). On this part of the subject there has been a\ngreat deal of rash and incompetent assertion. It involves delicate\nproblems on which an independent and a valuable opinion can only be\noffered by the merest handful of living scholars, and respecting\nwhich even these scholars sometimes disagree. In deciding upon\nsuch points ordinary students can only weigh the authority and the\narguments of specialists who have devoted a minute and lifelong study\nto the grammar and history of the Semitic languages.\n\nI know no higher contemporary authorities on the date of Hebrew\nwritings than the late veteran scholar F. Delitzsch and Professor\nDriver.\n\n1. Nothing was more beautiful and remarkable in Professor Delitzsch\nthan the open-minded candour which compelled him to the last to\nadvance with advancing thought; to admit all fresh elements of\nevidence; to continue his education as a Biblical inquirer to the\nlatest days of his life; and without hesitation to correct, modify,\nor even reverse his previous conclusions in accordance with the\nresults of deeper study and fresh discoveries. He wrote the article\non Daniel in Herzog's _Real-Encyclop\u00e4die_, and in the first edition\nof that work maintained its genuineness; but in the later editions\n(iii. 470) his views approximate more and more to those of the Higher\nCriticism. Of the Hebrew of Daniel he says that \"it attaches itself\nhere and there to Ezekiel, and also to Habakkuk; in general character\nit resembles the Hebrew of the Chronicler who wrote shortly before\nthe beginning of the Greek period (B.C. 332), and as compared either\nwith the ancient Hebrew, or with the Hebrew of the _Mishnah_ is full\nof singularities and harshnesses of style.\"[49]\n\nSo far, then, it is clear that, if the Hebrew mainly resembles that\nof B.C. 332, it is hardly likely that it should have been written\n_before_ B.C. 536.\n\nProfessor Driver says, \"The Hebrew of Daniel in all distinctive\nfeatures resembles, not the Hebrew of Ezekiel, or even of Haggai and\nZechariah, but that of the age subsequent to Nehemiah\"--whose age\nforms the great turning-point in Hebrew style.\n\nHe proceeds to give a list of linguistic peculiarities in support of\nthis view, and other specimens of sentences constructed, not in the\nstyle of classical Hebrew, but in \"the later uncouth style\" of the\nBook of Chronicles. He points out in a note that it is no explanation\nof these peculiarities to argue that, during his long exile, Daniel\nmay have partially forgotten the language of his youth; \"for this\nwould not account for the resemblance of the new and decadent idioms\nto those which appeared in Palestine independently two hundred and\nfifty years afterwards.\"[50] Behrmann, in the latest commentary on\nDaniel, mentions, in proof of the late character of the Hebrew:\n(1) the introduction of Persian words which could not have been\nused in Babylonian before the conquest of Cyrus (as in i. 3, 5, xi.\n45, etc.); (2) many Aramaic or Aramaising words, expressions, and\ngrammatical forms (as in i. 5, 10, 12, 16, viii. 18, 22, x. 17, 21,\netc.); (3) neglect of strict accuracy in the use of the Hebrew tenses\n(as in viii. 14, ix. 3 f., xi. 4 f., etc.); (4) the borrowing of\narchaic expressions from ancient sources (as in viii. 26, ix. 2, xi.\n10, 40, etc.); (5) the use of technical terms and periphrases common\nin Jewish apocalypses (xi. 6, 13, 35, 40, etc.).[51]\n\n2. These views of the character of the Hebrew agree with those of\nprevious scholars. Bertholdt and Kirms declare that its character\ndiffers _toto genere_ from what might have been expected had the Book\nbeen genuine. Gesenius says that the language is even more corrupt\nthan that of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi. Professor Driver says\nthe _Persian_ words _presuppose_ a period after the Persian Empire\nhad been well established; the _Greek_ words _demand,_ the _Hebrew\nsupports_, and the _Aramaic permits_ a date after the conquest of\nPalestine by Alexander the Great. De Wette and Ewald have pointed\nout the lack of the old passionate spontaneity of early prophecy; the\nabsence of the numerous and profound paronomasi\u00e6, or plays on words,\nwhich characterised the burning oratory of the prophets; and the\npeculiarities of the style--which is sometimes obscure and careless,\nsometimes pompous, iterative, and artificial.[52]\n\n3. It is noteworthy that in this Book the name of the great\nBabylonian conqueror, with whom, in the narrative part, Daniel\nis thrown into such close connexion, is invariably written in\nthe absolutely erroneous form which his name assumed in later\ncenturies--Nebuchad_n_ezzar. A contemporary, familiar with the\nBabylonian language, could not have been ignorant of the fact that\nthe only correct form of the name is Nebuchad_r_ezzar--_i.e._,\n_Nebu-kudurri-utsur_, \"Nebo protect the throne.\"[53]\n\n4. But the erroneous form Neduchad_n_ezzar is not the only one which\nentirely militates against the notion of a contemporary writer.\nThere seem to be other mistakes about Babylonian matters into which\na person in Daniel's position could not have fallen. Thus the\nname Belteshazzar seems to be connected in the writer's mind with\nBel, the favourite deity of Nebuchadrezzar; but it can only mean\n_Balatu-utsur_, \"his life protect,\" which looks like a mutilation.\nAbed-_nego_ is an astonishingly corrupt form for Abed-_nabu_, \"the\nservant of Nebo.\" Hammelzar, Shadrach, Meshach, Ashpenaz, are\ndeclared by Assyriologists to be \"out of keeping with Babylonian\nscience.\" In ii. 48 _sign\u00een_ means a civil ruler;--does not imply\nArchimagus, as the context seems to require, but, according to\nLenormant, a high civil officer.\n\n5. The _Aramaic_ of Daniel closely resembles that of Ezra. N\u00f6ldeke\ncalls it a Palestinian or Western Aramaic dialect, later than that of\nthe Book of Ezra.[54] It is of earlier type than that of the Targums\nof Jonathan and Onkelos; but that fact has very little bearing on\nthe date of the Book, because the differences are slight, and the\nresemblances manifold, and the Targums did not appear till after the\nChristian Era, nor assume their present shape perhaps before the\nfourth century. Further, \"recently discovered inscriptions have shown\nthat many of the forms in which the Aramaic of Daniel differs from\nthat of the Targums were actually in use in neighbouring countries\ndown to the first century A.D.\"[55]\n\n6. Two further philological considerations bear on the age of the Book.\n\ni. One of these is the existence of no less than fifteen _Persian_\nwords (according to N\u00f6ldeke and others), especially in the Aramaic\npart. These words, which would not be surprising after the complete\nestablishment of the Persian Empire, are surprising in passages which\ndescribe Babylonian institutions before the conquest of Cyrus.[56]\nVarious attempts have been made to account for this phenomenon.\nProfessor Fuller attempts to show, but with little success, that\nsome of them may be Semitic.[57] Others argue that they are amply\naccounted for by the Persian trade which, as may be seen from the\n_Records of the Past_,[58] existed between Persia and Babylonia as\nearly as the days of Belshazzar. To this it is replied that some of\nthe words are not of a kind which one nation would at once borrow\nfrom another,[59] and that \"no Persian words have hitherto been found\nin Assyrian or Babylonian inscriptions prior to the conquest of\nBabylon by Cyrus, except the name of the god Mithra.\"\n\nii. But the linguistic evidence unfavourable to the genuineness\nof the Book of Daniel is far stronger than this, in the startling\nfact that it contains at least three Greek words. After giving the\nfullest consideration to all that has been urged in refutation of\nthe conclusion, this circumstance has always been to me a strong\nconfirmation of the view that the Book of Daniel in its present form\nis not older than the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.\n\nThose three Greek words occur in the list of musical instruments\nmentioned in iii. 5, 7, 10, 15. They are: \u05e7\u05d9\u05ea\u05e8\u05dd, _kitharos_, \u03ba\u03af\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2,\n\"harp\"; \u05e4\u05e1\u05e0\u05ea\u05e8\u05d9\u05df, _psanter\u00een_, \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \"psaltery\";[60] \u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0,\n_s\u016bmp\u014dny\u0101h_, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, A.V. \"dulcimer,\" but perhaps \"bagpipes.\"[61]\n\nBe it remembered that these musical instruments are described as\nhaving (B.C. 550). Now, this is the date at which Pisistratus was\ntyrant at Athens, in the days of Pythagoras and Polycrates, before\nAthens became a fixed democracy. It is just conceivable that in\nthose days the Babylonians might have borrowed from Greece the word\n_kitharis_.[62] It is, indeed, supremely _unlikely_, because the harp\nhad been known in the East from the earliest days; and it is at least\nas probable that Greece, which at this time was only beginning to sit\nas a learner at the feet of the immemorial East, borrowed the idea\nof the instrument from Asia. Let it, however, be admitted that such\nwords as _yay\u00een_, \"wine\" (\u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), _lappid_, \"a torch\" (\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c2), and a\nfew others, _may_ indicate some early intercourse between Greece and\nthe East, and that some commercial relations of a rudimentary kind\nwere existent even in prehistoric days.[63]\n\nBut what are we to say of the two other words? Both are derivatives.\n_Psalterion_ does not occur in Greek before Aristotle (d. 322); nor\n_sumphonia_ before Plato (d. 347). In relation to music, and probably\nas the name of a musical instrument, _sumphonia_ is first used by\nPolybius (xxvi. 10, \u00a7 5, xxxi. 4, \u00a7 8), and _in express connexion_\nwith the festivities of the very king with whom the apocalyptic\nsection of Daniel is mainly occupied--Antiochus Epiphanes.[64] The\nattempts of Professor Fuller and others to derive these words from\nSemitic roots are a desperate resource, and cannot win the assent of\na single trained philologist. \"These words,\" says Professor Driver,\n\"could not have been used in the Book of Daniel, unless it had been\nwritten after the dissemination of Greek influence in Asia through\nthe conquest of Alexander the Great.\"[65]\n\n\n                        2. THE UNITY OF THE BOOK\n\nThe _Unity_ of the Book of Daniel is now generally admitted. No one\nthought of questioning it in days before the dawn of criticism, but\nin 1772 Eichhorn and Corrodi doubted the genuineness of the Book.\nJ. D. Michaelis endeavoured to prove that it was \"a collection of\nfugitive pieces,\" consisting of six historic pictures, followed by four\nprophetic visions.[66] Bertholdt, followed the erroneous tendency of\ncriticism which found a foremost exponent in Ewald, and imagined the\npossibility of detecting the work of many different hands. He divided\nthe Book into fragments by nine different authors.[67]\n\nZ\u00f6ckler, in Lange's _Bibelwerk_, persuaded himself that the old\n\"orthodox\" views of Hengstenberg and Auberlen were right; but he\ncould only do this by sacrificing the authenticity of parts of the\nBook, and assuming more than one redaction. Thus he supposes that\nxi. 5-39 are an interpolation by a writer in the days of Antiochus\nEpiphanes. Similarly, Lenormant admits interpolations in the _first_\nhalf of the Book. But to concede this is practically to give up the\nBook of Daniel as it now stands.\n\nThe _unity_ of the Book of Daniel is still admitted or assumed\nby most critics.[68] It has only been recently questioned in two\ndirections.\n\nMeinhold thinks that the Aramaic and historic sections are older\nthan the rest of the Book, and were written about B.C. 300 to convert\nthe Gentiles to monotheism.[69] He argues that the apocalyptic\nsection was written later, and was subsequently incorporated with\nthe Book. A somewhat similar view is held by Z\u00f6ckler,[70] and some\nhave thought that Daniel could never have written of himself in\nsuch highly favourable terms as, _e.g._, in Dan. vi. 4.[71] The\nfirst chapter, which is essential as an introduction to the Book,\nand the seventh, which is apocalyptic, and is yet in Aramaic,\ncreate objections to the acceptance of this theory. Further, it is\nimpossible not to observe a certain unity of style and parallelism\nof treatment between the two parts. Thus, if the prophetic section\nis mainly devoted to Antiochus Epiphanes, the historic section seems\nto have an allusive bearing on his impious madness. In ii. 10, 11,\nand vi. 8, we have descriptions of daring Pagan edicts, which might\nbe intended to furnish a contrast with the attempts of Antiochus to\n_suppress_ the worship of God. The feast of Belshazzar may well be\na \"reference to the Syrian despot's revelries at Daphne.\" Again, in\nii. 43--where the mixture of iron and clay is explained by \"they\nshall mingle themselves with the seed of men\"--it seems far from\nimprobable that there is a reference to the unhappy intermarriages\nof Ptolemies and Seleucid\u00e6. Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II.\n(Philadelphus), married Antiochus II. (Theos), and this is alluded\nto in the vision of xi. 6. Cleopatra, daughter of Antiochus III.\n(the Great), married Ptolemy V. (Epiphanes), which is alluded to\nin xi. 17.[72] The style seems to be stamped throughout with the\ncharacteristics of an individual mind, and the most cursory glance\nsuffices to show that the historic and prophetic parts are united\nby many points of connexion and resemblance. Meinhold is quite\nunsuccessful in the attempt to prove a sharp contrast of views\nbetween the sections. The interchange of persons--the _third_ person\nbeing mainly used in the first seven chapters, and the first person\nin the last five--may be partly due to the final editor; but in any\ncase it may easily be paralleled, and is found in other writers, as\nin Isaiah (vii. 3, xx. 2) and the Book of Enoch (xii.).\n\nBut it may be said in general that the authenticity of the Book is\nnow rarely defended by any competent critic, except at the cost of\nabandoning certain sections of it as interpolated additions; and as\nMr. Bevan somewhat caustically remarks, \"the defenders of Daniel\nhave, during the last few years, been employed chiefly in cutting\nDaniel to pieces.\"[73]\n\n\n                    3. THE GENERAL TONE OF THE BOOK\n\nThe general tone of the Book marks a new era in the education and\nprogress of the Jews. The lessons of the Exile uplifted them from\na too narrow and absorbing particularism to a wider interest in the\ndestinies of humanity. They were led to recognise that God \"has made\nof one every nation of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,\nhaving determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their\nhabitation; that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after\nHim, and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.\"[74] The\nstandpoint of the Book of Daniel is larger and more cosmopolitan in\nthis respect than that of earlier prophecy. Israel had begun to mingle\nmore closely with other nations, and to be a sharer in their destinies.\nPolitically the Hebrew race no longer formed a small though independent\nkingdom, but was reduced to the position of an entirely insignificant\nsub-province in a mighty empire. The Messiah is no longer the Son of\nDavid, but the Son of Man; no longer only the King of Israel, but of\nthe world. Mankind--not only the seed of Jacob--fills the field of\nprophetic vision. Amid widening horizons of thought the Jews turned\ntheir eyes upon a great past, rich in events, and crowded with the\nfigures of heroes, saints, and sages. At the same time the world seemed\nto be growing old, and its ever-deepening wickedness seemed to call\nfor some final judgment. We begin to trace in the Hebrew writings the\ncolossal conceptions, the monstrous imagery, the daring conjectures,\nthe more complex religious ideas, of an exotic fancy.[75]\n\n            \"The giant forms of Empires on their way\n             To ruin, dim and vast,\"\n\nbegin to fling their weird and sombre shadows over the page of sacred\nhistory and prophetic anticipation.\n\n\n\n                        4. THE STYLE OF THE BOOK\n\nThe style of the Book of Daniel is new, and has very marked\ncharacteristics, indicating its late position in the Canon. It is\nrhetorical rather than poetic. \"Totum Danielis librum,\" says Lowth,\n\"e poetarum censu excludo.\"[76] How widely does the style differ\nfrom the rapt passion and glowing picturesqueness of Isaiah, from\nthe elegiac tenderness of Jeremiah, from the lyrical sweetness of\nmany of the Psalms! How very little does it correspond to the three\ngreat requirements of poetry, that it should be, as Milton so finely\nsaid, \"simple, sensuous, passionate\"! A certain artificiality of\ndiction, a sounding oratorical stateliness, enhanced by dignified\nperiphrases and leisurely repetitions, must strike the most casual\nreader; and this is sometimes carried so far as to make the movement\nof the narrative heavy and pompous.[77] This peculiarity is not\nfound to the same extent in any other book of the Old Testament\nCanon, but it recurs in the Jewish writings of a later age. From the\napocryphal books, for instance, the poetical element is with trifling\nexceptions, such as the Song of the Three Children, entirely absent,\nwhile the taste for rhetorical ornamentation, set speeches, and\ndignified elaborateness is found in many of them.\n\nThis evanescence of the poetic and impassioned element separates\nDaniel from the Prophets, and marks the place of the Book among\nthe Hagiographa, where it was placed by the Jews themselves. In all\nthe great Hebrew seers we find something of the ecstatic transport,\nthe fire shut up within the bones and breaking forth from the\nvolcanic heart, the burning lips touched by the hands of seraphim\nwith a living coal from off the altar. The word for prophet (_nab\u00ee_,\n_Vates_) implies an inspired singer rather than a soothsayer or\nseer (_roeh_, _chozeh_). It is applied to Deborah and Miriam[78]\nbecause they poured forth from exultant hearts the p\u00e6an of victory.\nHence arose the close connexion between music and poetry.[79]\nElisha required the presence of a minstrel to soothe the agitation\nof a heart thrown into tumult by the near presence of a revealing\nPower.[80] Just as the Greek word \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, from \u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, implies a\nsort of madness, and recalls the foaming lip and streaming hair of\nthe spirit-dilated messenger, so the Hebrew verb _naba_ meant, not\nonly to proclaim God's oracles, but to be inspired by His possession\nas with a Divine frenzy.[81] \"Madman\" seemed a natural term to apply\nto the messenger of Elisha.[82] It is easy therefore to see why\nthe Book of Daniel was not placed among the prophetic rolls. This\n_vera passio_, this ecstatic elevation of thought and feeling, are\nwholly wanting in this earliest attempt at a philosophy of history.\nWe trace in it none of that \"blasting with excess of light,\" none\nof that shuddering sense of being uplifted out of self, which marks\nthe higher and earlier forms of prophetic inspiration. Daniel is\naddressed through the less exalted medium of visions, and in his\nvisions there is less of \"the faculty Divine.\" The instinct--if\ninstinct it were and not knowledge of the real origin of the\nBook--which led the \"Men of the Great Synagogue\" to place this Book\namong the _Ketubh\u00eem_, not among the Prophets, was wise and sure.[83]\n\n\n                    5. THE STANDPOINT OF THE AUTHOR\n\n     \"In Daniel \u00f6ffnet sich eine ganz neue Welt.\"--EICHHORN,\n     _Einleit._, iv. 472.\n\nThe author of the Book of Daniel seems naturally to place himself on a\nlevel lower than that of the prophets who had gone before him. He does\nnot count himself among the prophets; on the contrary, he puts them\nfar higher than himself, and refers to them as though they belonged\nto the dim and distant past (ix. 2, 6). In his prayer of penitence he\nconfesses, \"Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets,\nwhich spake in Thy Name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers\";\n\"Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in His\nlaws, which He set before us by His servants the prophets.\" Not once\ndoes he use the mighty formula \"Thus saith Jehovah\"--not once does he\nassume, in the prophecies, a tone of high personal authority. He shares\nthe view of the Maccabean age that prophecy is dead.[84]\n\nIn Dan. ix. 2 we find yet another decisive indication of the late\nage of this writing. He tells us that he \"understood by books\" (more\ncorrectly, as in the A.V., \"by _the_ books\"[85]) \"the number of the\nyears whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet.\"\nThe writer here represents himself as a humble student of previous\nprophets, and this necessarily marks a position of less freshness and\nindependence. \"To the old prophets,\" says Bishop Westcott, \"Daniel\nstands in some sense as a commentator.\" No doubt the possession of\nthose living oracles was an immense blessing, a rich inheritance; but\nit involved a danger. Truths established by writings and traditions,\nsafe-guarded by schools and institutions, are too apt to come to men\nonly as a power from without, and less as \"a hidden and inly burning\nflame.\"[86]\n\nBy \"_the_ books\" can hardly be meant anything but some approach to\na definite Canon. If so, the Book of Daniel in its present form can\nonly have been written subsequently to the days of Ezra. \"The account\nwhich assigns a collection of books to Nehemiah (2 Macc. ii. 13),\"\nsays Bishop Westcott, \"is in itself a confirmation of the general\ntruth of the gradual formation of the Canon during the Persian\nperiod. The various classes of books were completed in succession;\nand this view harmonises with what must have been the natural\ndevelopment of the Jewish faith after the Return. The persecution of\nAntiochus (B.C. 168) was for the Old Testament what the persecution\nof Diocletian was for the New--the final crisis which stamped the\nsacred writings with their peculiar character. The king sought\nout the Books of the Law (1 Macc. i. 56) and burnt them; and the\npossession of a 'Book of the Covenant' was a capital crime. According\nto the common tradition, the proscription of the Law led to the\npublic use of the writings of the prophets.\"[87]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe whole _method_ of Daniel differs even from that of the later\nand inferior prophets of the Exile--Haggai, Malachi, and the second\nZechariah. The Book is rather an apocalypse than a prophecy: \"the\neye and not the ear is the organ to which the chief appeal is made.\"\nThough symbolism in the form of visions is not unknown to Ezekiel\nand Zechariah, yet those prophets are far from being apocalyptic in\ncharacter. On the other hand, the grotesque and gigantic emblems of\nDaniel--these animal combinations, these interventions of dazzling\nangels who float in the air or over the water, these descriptions of\nhistorical events under the veil of material types seen in dreams--are\na frequent phenomenon in such late apocryphal writings as the Second\nBook of Esdras, the Book of Enoch, and the pr\u00e6-Christian Sibylline\noracles, in which talking lions and eagles, etc., are frequent.\nIndeed, this style of symbolism originated among the Jews from their\ncontact with the graven mysteries and colossal images of Babylonian\nworship. The Babylonian Exile formed an epoch in the intellectual\ndevelopment of Israel fully as important as the sojourn in Egypt.\nIt was a stage in their moral and religious education. It was the\npsychological preparation requisite for the moulding of the last phase\nof revelation--that apocalyptic form which succeeds to theophany\nand prophecy, and embodies the final results of national religious\ninspiration. That the apocalyptic method of dealing with history in a\nreligious and an imaginative manner naturally arises towards the close\nof any great cycle of special revelation is illustrated by the flood\nof apocalypses which overflowed the early literature of the Christian\nChurch. But the Jews clearly saw that, as a rule, an apocalypse is\ninherently inferior to a prophecy, even when it is made the vehicle\nof genuine prediction. In estimating the grades of inspiration the\nJews placed highest the inward illumination of the Spirit, the Reason,\nand the Understanding; next to this they placed dreams and visions;\nand lowest of all they placed the accidental auguries derived from\nthe _Bath Q\u00f4l_. An apocalypse may be of priceless value, like the\nRevelation of St. John; it may, like the Book of Daniel, abound in the\nnoblest and most thrilling lessons; but in intrinsic dignity and worth\nit is always placed by the instinct and conscience of mankind on a\nlower grade than such outpourings of Divine teachings as breathe and\nburn through the pages of a David and an Isaiah.\n\n\n                          6. THE MORAL ELEMENT\n\nLastly, among these salient phenomena of the Book of Daniel we are\ncompelled to notice the absence of the predominantly moral element\nfrom its prophetic portion. The author does not write in the tone\nof a preacher of repentance, or of one whose immediate object it\nis to ameliorate the moral and spiritual condition of his people.\nHis aims were different.[88] The older prophets were the ministers\nof dispensations between the Law and the Gospel. They were, in the\nbeautiful language of Herder,--\n\n            \"Die Saitenspiel in Gottes m\u00e4chtigen H\u00e4nden.\"\n\nDoctrine, worship, and consolation were their proper sphere. They\nwere \"_oratores Legis_, _advocati patri\u00e6_.\" In them prediction is\nwholly subordinate to moral warning and instruction. They denounce,\nthey inspire: they smite to the dust with terrible invective; they\nuplift once more into glowing hope. The announcement of events yet\nfuture is the smallest part of the prophet's office, and rather\nits sign than its substance. The highest mission of an Amos or an\nIsaiah is not to be a prognosticator, but to be a religious teacher.\nHe makes his appeals to the conscience, not to the imagination--to\nthe spirit, not to the sense. He deals with eternal principles, and\nis almost wholly indifferent to chronological verifications. To\nawaken the death-like slumber of sin, to fan the dying embers of\nfaithfulness, to smite down the selfish oppressions of wealth and\npower, to startle the sensual apathy of greed, were the ordinary\nand the noblest aims of the greater and the minor prophets. It was\ntheir task far rather to _forth-tell_ than to _fore-tell_; and if\nthey announce, in general outline and uncertain perspective, things\nwhich shall be hereafter, it is only in subordination to high ethical\npurposes, or profound spiritual lessons. So it is also in the\nRevelation of St. John. But in the \"prophetic\" part of Daniel it is\ndifficult for the keenest imagination to discern any deep moral, or\nany special doctrinal significance, in all the details of the obscure\nwars and petty diplomacy of the kings of the North and South.\n\nIn point of fact the Book of Daniel, even as an apocalypse, suffers\nseverely by comparison with that latest canonical Apocalypse of the\nBeloved Disciple which it largely influenced. It is strange that\nLuther, who spoke so slightingly of the Revelation of St. John,\nshould have placed the Book of Daniel so high in his estimation.\nIt is indeed a noble book, full of glorious lessons. Yet surely it\nhas but little of the sublime and mysterious beauty, little of the\nheart-shaking pathos, little of the tender sweetness of consolatory\npower, which fill the closing book of the New Testament. Its imagery\nis far less exalted, its hope of immortality far less distinct and\nunquenchable. Yet the Book of Daniel, while it is one of the earliest,\nstill remains one of the greatest specimens of this form of sacred\nliterature. It inaugurated the new epoch of \"apocalyptic\" which in\nlater days was usually pseudepigraphic, and sheltered itself under the\nnames of Enoch, Noah, Moses, Ezra, and even the heathen Sibyls. These\napocalypses are of very unequal value. \"Some,\" as Kuenen says, \"stand\ncomparatively high; others are far below mediocrity.\" But the genus to\nwhich they belong has its own peculiar defect. They are works of art:\nthey are not spontaneous; they smell of the lamp. A fruitless and an\nunpractical peering into the future was encouraged by these writings,\nand became predominant in some Jewish circles. But the Book of Daniel\nis incomparably superior in every possible respect to Baruch, or the\nBook of Enoch, or the Second Book of Esdras; and if we place it for\na moment by the side of such books as those contained in the _Codex\nPseudepigraphus_ of Fabricius, its high worth and Canonical authority\nare vindicated with extraordinary force. How lofty and enduring are the\nlessons to be learnt alike from its historic and predictive sections we\nshall have abundant opportunities of seeing in the following pages. So\nfar from undervaluing its teaching, I have always been strongly drawn\nto this Book of Scripture. It has never made the least difference in my\nreverent acceptance of it that I have, for many years, been convinced\nthat it cannot be regarded as literal history or ancient prediction.\nReading it as one of the noblest specimens of the Jewish Haggada or\nmoral Ethop\u0153ia, I find it full of instruction in righteousness, and\nrich in examples of life. That Daniel was a real person, that he lived\nin the days of the Exile, and that his life was distinguished by the\nsplendour of its faithfulness I hold to be entirely possible. When we\nregard the stories here related of him as moral legends, possibly based\non a groundwork of real tradition, we read the Book with a full sense\nof its value, and feel the power of the lessons which it was designed\nto teach, without being perplexed by its apparent improbabilities, or\nworried by its immense historic and other difficulties.\n\nThe Book is in all respects unique, a writing _sui generis_; for\nthe many imitations to which it led are but imitations. But, as the\nJewish writer Dr. Jo\u00ebl truly says, the unveiling of the secret as to\nthe real lateness of its date and origin, so far from causing any\nloss in its beauty and interest, enhance both in a remarkable degree.\nIt is thus seen to be the work of a brave and gifted anonymous author\nabout B.C. 167, who brought his piety and his patriotism to bear\non the troubled fortunes of his people at an epoch in which such\npiety and patriotism were of priceless value. We have in its later\nsections no voice of enigmatic prediction, foretelling the minutest\ncomplications of a distant secular future, but mainly the review of\ncontemporary events by a wise and an earnest writer whose faith and\nhope remained unquenchable in the deepest night of persecution and\napostasy.[89] Many passages of the Book are dark, and will remain\ndark, owing partly perhaps to corruptions and uncertainties of the\ntext, and partly to imitation of a style which had become archaic,\nas well as to the peculiarities of the apocalyptic form. But the\ngeneral idea of the Book has now been thoroughly elucidated, and the\ninterpretation of it in the following pages is accepted by the great\nmajority of earnest and faithful students of the Scriptures.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[35] Kranichfeld, _Das Buch Daniel_, p. 4.\n\n[36] See Ezra iv. 7, vi. 18, vii. 12-26.\n\n[37] \"The term 'Chaldee' for the Aramaic of either the Bible or\nthe Targums is a misnomer, the use of which is only a source of\nconfusion\" (Driver, p. 471). A single verse of Jeremiah (x. 11) is in\nAramaic: \"Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods who made not heaven\nand earth shall perish from the earth and from under heaven.\" Perhaps\nJeremiah gave the verse \"to the Jews as an answer to the heathen\namong whom they were\" (Pusey, p. 11).\n\n[38] \u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea; LXX., \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9--_i.e._, in Aramaic. The word may be a\ngloss, as it is in Ezra iv. 7 (Lenormant). See, however, Kamphausen, p.\n14. We cannot here enter into minor points, such as that in ii.-vi. we\nhave \u05d0\u05b2\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc for \"see,\" and in vii. 2, 3, \u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc; which Meinhold takes to\nprove that the historic section is earlier than the prophetic.\n\n[39] Driver, p. 471; N\u00f6ldeke, _Enc. Brit._, xxi. 647; Wright,\n_Grammar_, p. 16. Ad. Merx has a treatise on _Cur in lib. Dan. juxta\nHebr. Aramaica sit adhibita dialectus_, 1865; but his solution,\n\"Scriptorem omnia qu\u00e6 rudioribus vulgi ingeniis apta viderentur\nAramaice pr\u00e6posuisse\" is wholly untenable.\n\n[40] Auberlen, _Dan._, pp. 28, 29 (E. Tr.).\n\n[41] _Einleit._, \u00a7 383.\n\n[42] Cheyne, _Enc. Brit._, _s.v._ \"Daniel.\"\n\n[43] \u05db\u05ea\u05d1\u05d5. See 2 Esdras xiv. 22-48: \"In forty days they _wrote_ two\nhundred and four books.\"\n\n[44] _Baba-Bathra_, f. 15, 6: comp. _Sanhedrin_, f. 83, 6.\n\n[45] _Yaddayim_, iv.; _Mish._, 5.\n\n[46] See Rau, _De Synag. Magna._, ii. 66 ff.; Kuenen, _Over de Mannen\nder Groote Synagoge_, 1876; Ewald, _Hist. of Israel_, v. 168-170 (E.\nTr.); Westcott, _s.v._ \"Canon\" (Smith's _Dict._, i. 500).\n\n[47] _Yaddayim_, iii.; _Mish._, 5; Hershon, _Treasures of the\nTalmud_, pp. 41-43.\n\n[48] Hershon (_l.c._) refers to _Shabbath_, f. 14, 1.\n\n[49] Herzog, _l.c._; so too K\u00f6nig, _Einleit._, \u00a7 387: \"Das Hebr. der\nB. Dan. ist nicht blos nachexilisch sondern auch nachchronistisch.\"\nHe instances _ribbo_ (Dan. xi. 12) for _rebaba_, \"myriads\" (Ezek.\nxvi. 7); and _tam\u00eed_, \"the daily burnt offering\" (Dan. viii. 11),\nas post-Biblical Hebrew for _'olath hatam\u00eed_ (Neh. x. 34), etc.\nMargoliouth (_Expositor_, April 1890) thinks that the Hebrew proves a\ndate before B.C. 168: on which view see Driver, p, 483.\n\n[50] _Lit. of Old Test._, pp. 473-476.\n\n[51] _Das Buch Dan._, iii.\n\n[52] See Glassius, _Philol. Sacr._, p. 931; Ewald, _Die Proph. d. A.\nBundes_, i. 48; De Wette, _Einleit._, \u00a7 347.\n\n[53] Ezekiel always uses the correct form (xxvi. 7, xxix. 18, xxx.\n10). Jeremiah uses the correct form except in passages which properly\nbelong to the Book of Kings.\n\n[54] N\u00f6ldeke, _Semit. Spr._, p. 30; Driver, p. 472; K\u00f6nig, p. 387.\n\n[55] Driver, p. 472, and the authorities there quoted; as against\nMcGill and Pusey (_Daniel_, pp. 45 ff., 602 ff.). Dr. Pusey's is\nthe fullest repertory of arguments in favour of the authenticity of\nDaniel, many of which have become more and more obviously untenable\nas criticism advances. But he and Keil add little or nothing to what\nhad been ingeniously elaborated by Hengstenberg and H\u00e4vernick. For a\nsketch of the peculiarities in the Aramaic see Behrmann, _Daniel_,\nv.-x. Renan (_Hist. G\u00e9n. des Langues S\u00e9m._, p. 219) exaggerates when\nhe says, \"La langue des parties chald\u00e9nnes est beaucoup plus basse\nque celle des fragments chald\u00e9ens du Livre d'Esdras, et s'incline\n_beaucoup_ vers la langue du Talmud.\"\n\n[56] Meinhold, _Beitr\u00e4ge_, pp. 30-32; Driver, p. 470.\n\n[57] _Speaker's Commentary_, vi. 246-250.\n\n[58] New Series, iii. 124.\n\n[59] _E.g._, \u05d4\u05d3\u05dd, \"limb\"; \u05e8\u05d6, \"secret\"; \u05e4\u05ea\u05d2\u05dd, \"message.\" There are\nno Persian words in Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, or Malachi; they\nare found in Ezra and Esther, which were written long after the\nestablishment of the Persian Empire.\n\n[60] The change of _n_ for _l_ is not uncommon: comp. \u03b2\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u03c6\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, etc.\n\n[61] The word \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d1\u05bd\u05db\u05b8\u05d0, _Sab'ka_, also bears a suspicious resemblance\nto \u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03cd\u03ba\u03b7, but Athen\u00e6us says (_Deipnos._, iv. 173) that the\ninstrument was invented by the Syrians. Some have seen in _k\u0101r\u00f4z_\n(iii. 4, \"herald\") the Greek \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03be, and in _hamn\u00eek_, \"chain,\" the\nGreek \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2: but these cannot be pressed.\n\n[62] It is true that there was _some_ small intercourse between even\nthe Assyrians and Ionians (Ja-am-na-a) as far back as the days of\nSargon (B.C. 722-705); but not enough to account for such words.\n\n[63] Sayce, _Contemp. Rev._, December 1878.\n\n[64] Some argue that in this passage \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 means \"a concert\"\n(comp. Luke xv. 25); but Polybius mentions it with \"a horn\"\n(\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd). Behrmann (p. ix) connects it with \u03c3\u03af\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd, and makes it\nmean \"a pipe.\"\n\n[65] Pusey says all he can on the other side (pp. 23-28), and has\nnot changed the opinion of scholars (pp. 27-33). Fabre d'Envieu (i.\n101) also desperately denies the existence of any Greek words. On the\nother side see Derenbourg, _Les Mots grecs dans le Livre biblique de\nDaniel_ (M\u00e9langes Graux, 1884).\n\n[66] _Orient. u. Exeg. Bibliothek_, 1772, p. 141. This view was\nrevived by Lagarde in the _G\u00f6ttingen Gel. Anzeigen_, 1891.\n\n[67] _Daniel neu \u00dcbersetz. u. Erkl\u00e4rt._, 1808; K\u00f6hler, _Lehrbuch_,\nii. 577. The first who suspected the unity of the Book because of the\ntwo languages was Spinoza (_Tract-historicopol_, x. 130 ff.). Newton\n(_Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse_,\ni. 10) and Beausobre (_Remarques sur le Nouv. Test._, i. 70) shared\nthe doubt because of the use of the first person in the prophetic\n(Dan. vii.-xii.) and the third in the historic section (Dan. i.-vi.).\nMichaelis, Bertholdt, and Reuss considered that its origin was\nfragmentary; and Lagarde (who dated the seventh chapter A.D. 69)\ncalls it \"a bundle of flyleaves.\" Meinhold and Strack, like Eichhorn,\nregard the historic section as older than the prophetic; and Cornill\nthinks that the Book was put together in great haste. Similarly,\nGraf (_Der Prophet Jeremia_) regards the Aramaic verse, Jer. x. 11,\nas a marginal gloss. Lagarde argues, from the silence of Josephus\nabout many points, that he could not have had the present Book of\nDaniel before him (_e.g._, Dan. vii. or ix.-xii.); but the argument\nis unsafe. Josephus seems to have understood the Fourth Empire to be\nthe Roman, and did not venture to write of its destruction. For this\nreason he does not explain \"the stone\" of Dan. ii. 45.\n\n[68] By De Wette, Schrader, Hitzig, Ewald, Gesenius, Bleek,\nDelitzsch, Von Lengerke, St\u00e4helin, Kamphausen, Wellhausen, etc.\nReuss, however, says (_Heil. Schrift._, p. 575), \"Man k\u00f6nnte auf die\nVorstellung kommen das Buch habe mehr als einen Verfasser\"; and K\u00f6nig\nthinks that the original form of the book may have ended with chap.\nvii. (_Einleit._, \u00a7 384).\n\n[69] _Beitr\u00e4ge_, 1888. See too Kranichfeld, _Das Buch Daniel_, p. 4.\nThe view is refuted by Budde, _Theol. Lit. Zeitung_, 1888, No. 26.\nThe conjecture has often occurred to critics. Thus Sir Isaac Newton,\nbelieving that Daniel wrote the last six chapters, thought that the\nsix first \"are a collection of historical papers written by others\"\n(_Observations_, i. 10).\n\n[70] _Einleit._, p. 6.\n\n[71] Other critics who incline to one or other modification of this\nview of the _two_ Daniels are Tholuck, _d. A.T. in N.T._, 1872; C. v.\nOrelli, _Alttest. Weissag._, 1882; and Strack.\n\n[72] Hengstenberg also points to verbal resemblances between ii. 44\nand vii. 14; iv. 5 and vii. 1; ii. 31 and vii. 2; ii. 38 and vii. 17,\netc. (_Genuineness of Daniel_, E. Tr., pp. 186 ff.).\n\n[73] _A Short Commentary_, p. 8.\n\n[74] Acts xvii. 26, 27.\n\n[75] See Hitzig, p. xii; Auberlen, p. 41.\n\n[76] Reuss says too severely, \"Die Schilderungen aller dieser\nVorg\u00e4nge machen keinen gewinnenden Eindruck.... Der Stil ist\nunbeholfen, die Figuren grotesk, die Farben grell.\" He admits,\nhowever, the suitableness of the Book for the Maccabean epoch, and\nthe deep impression it made (_Heil. Schrift. A. T._, p. 571).\n\n[77] See iii. 2, 3, 5, 7; viii. 1, 10, 19; xi. 15, 22, 31, etc.\n\n[78] Exod. xv. 20; Judg. iv. 4.\n\n[79] 1 Sam. x. 5; 1 Chron. xxv. 1, 2, 3.\n\n[80] 2 Kings iii. 15.\n\n[81] Jer. xxix. 26; 1 Sam. xviii. 10, xix. 21-24.\n\n[82] 2 Kings ix. 11. See Expositor's Bible, _Second Book of Kings_,\np. 113.\n\n[83] On this subject see Ewald, _Proph. d. A. Bundes_, i. 6; Novalis,\n_Schriften_, ii. 472; Herder, _Geist der Ebr. Poesie_, ii. 61;\nKnobel, _Prophetismus_, i. 103. Even the Latin poets were called\n_prophet\u00e6_, \"bards\" (Varro, _De Ling. Lat._, vi. 3). Epimenides\nis called \"a prophet\" in Tit. i. 12. See Plato, _Tim._, 72, A.;\n_Ph\u00e6dr._, 262, D.; Pind., _Fr._, 118; and comp. Eph. iii. 5, iv. 11.\n\n[84] Dan. ix. 6, 10. So conscious was the Maccabean age of the\nabsence of prophets, that, just as after the Captivity a question\nis postponed \"till there should arise a priest with the Urim and\nThummin,\" so Judas postponed the decision about the stones of the\ndesecrated altar \"until there should come a prophet to show what\nshould be done with them\" (1 Macc. iv. 45, 46, ix. 27, xiv. 41).\nComp. Song of the Three Children, 15; Psalm lxxiv. 9; _Sota_, f. 48,\n2. See _infra_, Introd., chap. viii.\n\n[85] Dan. ix. 2, _hassephar\u00eem_, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n[86] Ewald, _Proph. d. A. B._, p. 10. Judas Maccab\u00e6us is also said to\nhave \"restored\" (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5) the lost (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1) sacred writings\n(2 Macc. ii. 14).\n\n[87] Smith's _Dict. of the Bible_, i. 501. The daily lesson from the\nProphets was called the _Haphtarah_ (Hamburger, _Real-Encycl._, ii.\n334).\n\n[88] On this subject see Kuenen, _The Prophets_, iii. 95 ff.;\nDavison, _On Prophecy_, pp. 34-67; Herder, _Hebr. Poesie_, ii. 64; De\nWette, _Christl. Sittenlehre_, ii. 1.\n\n[89] Jo\u00ebl, _Notizen_, p. 7.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n\n                _PECULIARITIES OF THE HISTORIC SECTION_\n\n\nNo one can have studied the Book of Daniel without seeing that, alike\nin the character of its miracles and the minuteness of its supposed\npredictions, it makes a more stupendous and a less substantiated\nclaim upon our credence than any other book of the Bible, and a\nclaim wholly different in character. It has over and over again been\nasserted by the uncharitableness of a merely traditional orthodoxy\nthat inability to accept the historic verity and genuineness of the\nBook arises from secret faithlessness, and antagonism to the admission\nof the supernatural. No competent scholar will think it needful to\nrefute such calumnies. It suffices us to know before God that we are\nactuated simply by the love of truth, by the abhorrence of anything\nwhich in us would be a pusillanimous spirit of falsity. We have too\ndeep a belief in the God of the Amen, the God of eternal and essential\nverity, to offer to Him \"the unclean sacrifice of a lie.\" An error\nis not sublimated into a truth even when that lie has acquired a\nquasi-consecration, from its supposed desirability for purposes of\northodox controversy, or from its innocent acceptance by generations\nof Jewish and Christian Churchmen through long ages of uncritical\nignorance. Scholars, if they be Christians at all, can have no possible\n_a-priori_ objection to belief in the supernatural. If they believe,\nfor instance, in the Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus\nChrist, they believe in the most mysterious and unsurpassable of all\nmiracles, and beside that miracle all minor questions of God's power or\nwillingness to manifest His immediate intervention in the affairs of\nmen sink at once into absolute insignificance.\n\nBut our belief in the Incarnation, and in the miracles of Christ,\nrests on evidence which, after repeated examination, is to us\noverwhelming. Apart from all questions of personal verification, or\nthe Inward Witness of the Spirit, we can show that this evidence\nis supported, not only by the existing records, but by myriads of\nexternal and independent testimonies. The very same Spirit which\nmakes men believe where the demonstration is decisive, compels them\nto refuse belief to the literal verity of unique miracles and unique\npredictions which come before them without any convincing evidence.\nThe narratives and visions of this Book present difficulties on\nevery page. They were in all probability never intended for anything\nbut what they are--_Haggadoth_, which, like the parables of Christ,\nconvey their own lessons without depending on the necessity for\naccordance with historic fact.\n\nHad it been any part of the Divine will that we should accept these\nstories as pure history, and these visions as predictions of events\nwhich were not to take place till centuries afterwards, we should\nhave been provided with some aids to such belief. On the contrary,\nin whatever light we examine the Book of Daniel, the evidence _in\nits favour_ is weak, dubious, hypothetical, and _a priori_; while\nthe evidence _against_ it acquires increased intensity with every\nfresh aspect in which it is examined. The Book which would make the\nmost extraordinary demands upon our credulity if it were meant for\nhistory, is the very Book of which the genuineness and authenticity\nare decisively discredited by every fresh discovery and by each new\nexamination. There is scarcely one learned European scholar by whom\nthey are maintained, except with such concessions to the Higher\nCriticism as practically involve the abandonment of all that is\nessential in the traditional theory.\n\nAnd we have come to a time when it will not avail to take refuge in\nsuch transferences of the discussions in _alteram materiam_, and such\npurely vulgar appeals _ad invidiam_, as are involved in saying, \"Then\nthe Book must be a forgery,\" and \"an imposture,\" and \"a gross lie.\" To\nassert that \"to give up the Book of Daniel is to betray the cause of\nChristianity,\"[90] is a coarse and dangerous misuse of the weapons of\ncontroversy. Such talk may still have been excusable even in the days\nof Dr. Pusey (with whom it was habitual); it is no longer excusable\nnow. Now it can only prove the uncharitableness of the apologist, and\nthe impotence of a defeated cause. Yet even this abandonment of the\nsphere of honourable argument is only one degree more painful than the\ntortuous subterfuges and wild assertions to which such apologists as\nHengstenberg, Keil, and their followers were long compelled to have\nrecourse. Anything can be proved about anything if we call to our aid\nindefinite suppositions of errors of transcription, interpolations,\ntranspositions, extraordinary silences, still more extraordinary\nmethods of presenting events, and (in general) the unconsciously\ndisingenuous resourcefulness of traditional harmonics. To maintain that\nthe Book of Daniel, as it now stands, was written by Daniel in the days\nof the Exile is to cherish a belief which can only, at the utmost,\nbe extremely uncertain, and which must be maintained in defiance of\nmasses of opposing evidence. There can be little intrinsic value in a\ndetermination to believe historical and literary assumptions which can\nno longer be maintained except by preferring the flimsiest hypotheses\nto the most certain facts.\n\nMy own conviction has long been that in these _Haggadoth_, in which\nJewish literature delighted in the pr\u00e6-Christian era, and which\ncontinued to be written even till the Middle Ages, there was not the\nleast pretence or desire to deceive at all. I believe them to have\nbeen put forth as moral legends--as avowed fiction nobly used for\nthe purposes of religious teaching and encouragement. In ages of\nignorance, in which no such thing as literary criticism existed, a\npopular _Haggada_ might soon come to be regarded as historical, just\nas the Homeric lays were among the Greeks, or just as Defoe's story\nof the Plague of London was taken for literal history by many readers\neven in the seventeenth century.\n\nIngenious attempts have been made to show that the author of this\nBook evinces an intimate familiarity with the circumstances of the\nBabylonian religion, society, and history. In many cases this is the\nreverse of the fact. The instances adduced in favour of any knowledge\nexcept of the most general description are entirely delusive. It\nis frivolous to maintain, with Lenormant, that an exceptional\nacquaintance with Babylonian custom was required to describe\nNebuchadrezzar as consulting diviners for the interpretation of a\ndream! To say nothing of the fact that a similar custom has prevailed\nin all nations and all ages from the days of Samuel to those of\nLobengula, the writer had the prototype of Pharaoh before him, and\nhas evidently been influenced by the story of Joseph.[91] Again, so\nfar from showing surprising acquaintance with the organisation of\nthe caste of Babylonian diviners, the writer has made a mistake in\ntheir very name, as well as in the statement that a faithful Jew,\nlike Daniel, was made the chief of their college![92] Nor, again, was\nthere anything so unusual in the presence of women at feasts--also\nrecognised in the _Haggada_ of Esther--as to render this a sign of\nextraordinary information. Once more, is it not futile to adduce the\nallusion to punishment by burning alive as a proof of insight into\nBabylonian peculiarities? This punishment had already been mentioned\nby Jeremiah in the case of Nebuchadrezzar. \"Then shall be taken up\na curse by all the captivity of Judah which are in Babylon, saying,\nThe Lord make thee like Zedekiah and like Ahab\" (two false prophets),\n\"_whom the King of Babylon roasted in the fire_.\"[93] Moreover, it\noccurs in the Jewish traditions which described a miraculous escape\nof exactly the same character in the legend of Abraham. He, too, had\nbeen supernaturally rescued from the burning fiery furnace of Nimrod,\nto which he had been consigned because he refused to worship idols in\nUr of the Chaldees.[94]\n\nWhen the instances _mainly_ relied upon prove to be so evidentially\nvalueless, it would be waste of time to follow Professor Fuller\nthrough the less important and more imaginary proofs of accuracy\nwhich his industry has amassed. Meanwhile the feeblest reasoner will\nsee that while a writer may easily be accurate in general facts, and\neven in details, respecting an age long previous to that in which\nhe wrote, the existence of violent errors as to matters with which a\ncontemporary must have been familiar at once refutes all pretence of\nhistoric authenticity in a book professing to have been written by an\nauthor in the days and country which he describes.\n\nNow such mistakes there seem to be, and not a few of them, in the pages\nof the Book of Daniel. One or two of them can perhaps be explained\naway by processes which would amply suffice to show that \"yes\" means\n\"no,\" or that \"black\" is a description of \"white\"; but each repetition\nof such processes leaves us more and more incredulous. If errors be\ntreated as corruptions of the text, or as later interpolations, such\narbitrary methods of treating the Book are practically an admission\nthat, as it stands, it cannot be regarded as historical.\n\nI. We are, for instance, met by what seems to be a remarkable error\nin the very first verse of the Book, which tells us that \"_In the\nthird year of Jehoiakim, King of Judah_, came Nebuchad_n_ezzar\"--as\nin later days he was incorrectly called--\"King of Babylon, unto\nJerusalem, and besieged it.\"\n\nIt is easy to trace whence the error sprang. Its source lies in a\nbook which is the latest in the whole Canon, and in many details\ndifficult to reconcile with the Book of Kings--a book of which the\nHebrew resembles that of Daniel--the Book of Chronicles. In 2 Chron.\nxxxvi. 6 we are told that Nebuchad_n_ezzar came up against Jehoiakim,\nand \"bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon\"; and also--to\nwhich the author of Daniel directly refers--that he carried off some\nof the vessels of the House of God, to put them in the treasure-house\nof his god. In this passage it is _not_ said that this occurred \"_in\nthe third year_ of Jehoiakim,\" who reigned eleven years; but in 2\nKings xxiv. 1 we are told that \"in his days Nebuchad_n_ezzar came\nup, and Jehoiakim _became his servant three years_.\" The passage in\nDaniel looks like a confused reminiscence of the \"three years\" with\n\"the third year of Jehoiakim.\" The elder and better authority (the\nBook of Kings) is silent about any deportation having taken place in\nthe reign of Jehoiakim, and so is the contemporary Prophet Jeremiah.\nBut in any case it seems impossible that it should have taken place\nso early as the _third year_ of Jehoiakim, for at that time he was a\nsimple vassal of the King of Egypt. If this deportation took place in\nthe reign of Jehoiakim, it would certainly be singular that Jeremiah,\nin enumerating three others, in the seventh, eighteenth, and\ntwenty-third year of Nebuchadrezzar,[95] should make no allusion to\nit. But it is hard to see how it could have taken place before Egypt\nhad been defeated in the Battle of Carchemish, and that was not till\nB.C. 597, the _fourth_ year of Jehoiakim.[96] Not only does Jeremiah\nmake no mention of so remarkable a deportation as this, which as the\nearliest would have caused the deepest anguish, but, in the _fourth_\nyear of Jehoiakim (Jer. xxxvi. 1), he writes a roll to threaten evils\nwhich are still future, and in the _fifth_ year proclaims a fast in\nthe hope that the imminent peril may even yet be averted (Jer. xxxvi.\n6-10). It is only after the violent obstinacy of the king that the\ndestructive advance of Nebuchadrezzar is finally prophesied (Jer.\nxxxvi. 29) as something which has not yet occurred.[97]\n\nII. Nor are the names in this first chapter free from difficulty.\nDaniel is called Belteshazzar, and the remark of the King of\nBabylon--\"whose name was Belteshazzar, _according to the name of\nmy god_\"--certainly suggests that the first syllable is (as the\nMassorets assume) connected with the god Bel. But the name has\nnothing to do with Bel. No contemporary could have fallen into such\nan error;[98] still less a king who spoke Babylonian. Shadrach _may_\nbe _Shudur-aku_, \"command of Aku,\" the moon-god; but Meshach is\ninexplicable; and Abed-nego is a strange corruption for the obvious\nand common Abed-nebo, \"servant of Nebo.\" Such a corruption could\nhardly have arisen till Nebo was practically forgotten. And what is\nthe meaning of \"the _Melzar_\" (Dan. i. 11)? The A.V. takes it to\nbe a proper name; the R.V. renders it \"the steward.\" But the title\nis unique and obscure.[99] Nor can anything be made of the name of\nAshpenaz, the prince of the eunuchs, whom, in one manuscript, the\nLXX. call Abiesdri.[100]\n\nIII. Similar difficulties and uncertainties meet us at every step.\nThus, in the second chapter (ii. 1), the dream of Nebuchadrezzar\nis fixed in the _second_ year of his reign. This does not seem to\nbe in accord with i. 3, 18, which says that Daniel and his three\ncompanions were kept under the care of the prince of the eunuchs for\nthree years. Nothing, of course, is easier than to invent harmonistic\nhypotheses, such as that of Rashi, that \"the second year _of the\nreign of Nebuchadrezzar_\" has the wholly different meaning of \"the\nsecond year after _the destruction of the Temple_\"; or as that of\nHengstenberg, followed by many modern apologists, that Nebuchadrezzar\nhad previously been associated in the kingdom with Nabopolassar, and\nthat this was the second year of his independent reign. Or, again,\nwe may, with Ewald, read \"the twelfth year.\" But by these methods we\nare not taking the Book as it stands, but are supposing it to be a\nnetwork of textual corruptions and conjectural combinations.\n\nIV. In ii. 2 the king summons four classes of hierophants to\ndisclose his dream and its interpretation. They are the magicians\n(_Chartumm\u00eem_), the enchanters (_Ashshaph\u00eem_), the sorcerers\n(_Mechashsh'ph\u00eem_), and the Chaldeans (_Kasd\u00eem_).[101] The\n_Chartumm\u00eem_ occur in Gen. xli. 8 (which seems to be in the writer's\nmind); and the _Mechashsh'ph\u00eem_ occur in Exod. vii. 11, xxii. 18;\nbut the mention of _Kasd\u00eem_, \"Chaldeans,\" is, so far as we know, an\nimmense anachronism. In much later ages the name was used, as it was\namong the Roman writers, for wandering astrologers and quacks.[102]\nBut this degenerate sense of the word was, so far as we can judge,\nwholly unknown to the age of Daniel. It never once occurs in this\nsense on any of the monuments. Unknown to the Assyrian-Babylonian\nlanguage, and only acquired long after the end of the Babylonian\nEmpire, such a usage of the word is, as Schrader says, \"an indication\nof the post-exilic composition of the Book.\"[103] In the days of\nDaniel \"Chaldeans\" had no meaning resembling that of \"magicians\" or\n\"astrologers.\" In every other writer of the Old Testament, and in all\ncontemporary records, _Kasd\u00eem_ simply means the Chaldean nation, and\n_never_ a learned caste.[104] This single circumstance has decisive\nweight in proving the late age of the Book of Daniel.\n\nV. Again, we find in ii. 14, \"Arioch, the chief of the executioners.\"\nSchrader precariously derives the name from _Eri-aku_, \"servant of\nthe moon-god\"; but, however that may be, we already find the name as\nthat of a king Ellasar in Gen. xiv. 1, and we find it again for a\nking of the Elym\u00e6ans in Judith i. 6. In ver. 16 Daniel \"went in and\ndesired of the king\" a little respite; but in ver. 25 Arioch tells\nthe king, as though it were a sudden discovery of his own, \"I have\nfound a man of the captives of Judah, that will make known unto the\nking the interpretation.\" This was a surprising form of introduction,\nafter we have been told that the king himself had, by personal\nexamination, found that Daniel and his young companions were \"_ten\ntimes better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all\nhis realm_.\" It seems, however, as if each of these chapters was\nintended to be recited as a separate _Haggada_.\n\nVI. In ii. 46, after the interpretation of the dream, \"_the King\nNebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded\nthat they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him_.\" This\nis another of the immense surprises of the Book. It is exactly the kind\nof incident in which the haughty theocratic sentiment of the Jews found\ndelight, and we find a similar spirit in the many Talmudic inventions\nin which Roman emperors, or other potentates, are represented as paying\nextravagant adulation to Rabbinic sages. There is (as we shall see) a\nsimilar story narrated by Josephus of Alexander the Great prostrating\nhimself before the high priest Jaddua, but it has long been relegated\nto the realm of fable as an outcome of Jewish self-esteem.[105] It is\nprobably meant as a concrete illustration of the glowing promises of\nIsaiah, that \"kings and queens shall bow down to thee with their faces\ntowards the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet\";[106] and \"the\nsons of them that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles\nof thy feet.\"[107]\n\nVII. We further ask in astonishment whether Daniel could have\naccepted without indignant protest the offering of \"an oblation\nand sweet odours.\" To say that they were only offered to God in\nthe person of Daniel is the idle pretence of all idolatry. They\nare expressly said to be offered \"to Daniel.\" A Herod could accept\nblasphemous adulations;[108] but a Paul and a Barnabas deprecate such\ndevotions with intense disapproval.[109]\n\nVIII. In ii. 48 Nebuchadrezzar appoints Daniel, as a reward for\nhis wisdom, to rule over the whole province of Babylon, and to\nbe _Rab-sign\u00een_, \"chief ruler,\" and to be over all the wise men\n(_Khakamim_) of Babylon. Lenormant treats this statement as an\ninterpolation, because he regards it as \"_evidently_ impossible.\"\nWe know that in the Babylonian priesthood, and especially among\nthe sacred caste, there was a passionate religious intolerance. It\nis inconceivable that they should have accepted as their religious\nsuperior a monotheist who was the avowed and uncompromising enemy\nto their whole system of idolatry. It is equally inconceivable\nthat Daniel should have accepted the position of a hierophant in a\npolytheistic cult. In the next three chapters there is no allusion to\nDaniel's tenure of these strange and exalted offices, either civil or\nreligious.[110]\n\nIX. The third chapter contains another story, told in a style of\nwonderful stateliness and splendour, and full of glorious lessons; but\nhere again we encounter linguistic and other difficulties. Thus in iii.\n2, though \"all the rulers of the provinces\" and officers of all ranks\nare summoned to the dedication of Nebuchadrezzar's colossus, there is\nnot an allusion to Daniel throughout the chapter. Four of the names of\nthe officers in iii. 2, 3, appear, to our surprise, to be Persian;[111]\nand, of the six musical instruments, three--the lute, psaltery, and\nbagpipe[112]--have obvious Greek names, two of which (as already\nstated) are of late origin, while another, the _sab'ka_, resembles the\nGreek \u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03cd\u03ba\u03b7, but may have come to the Greeks from the Aram\u00e6ans.[113]\nThe incidents of the chapter are such as find no analogy throughout the\nOld or New Testament, but exactly resemble those of Jewish moralising\nfiction, of which they furnish the most perfect specimen. It is\nexactly the kind of concrete comment which a Jewish writer of piety\nand genius, for the encouragement of his afflicted people, might have\nbased upon such a passage as Isa. xliii. 2, 3: \"When thou walkest\nthrough the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame\nkindle upon thee. For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel,\nthy Saviour.\" Nebuchadrezzar's decree, \"That every _people, nation,\nand language_, which speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach,\nMeshach, and Abed-nego, _shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall\nbe made a dunghill_,\" can only be paralleled out of the later Jewish\nliterature.[114]\n\nX. In chap. iv. we have another monotheistic decree of the King of\nBabylon, announcing to \"all people, nations, and languages\" what\n\"the high God hath wrought towards me.\" It gives us a vision which\nrecalls Ezek. xxxi. 3-18, and may possibly have been suggested by\nthat fine chapter.[115] The language varies between the third and the\nfirst person. In iv. 13 Nebuchadrezzar speaks of \"a watcher and a\nholy one.\" This is the first appearance in Jewish literature of the\nword _'ir_, \"watcher,\" which is so common in the Book of Enoch.[116]\nIn ver. 26 the expression \"after thou shalt have known that _the\nheavens_ do rule\" is one which has no analogue in the Old Testament,\nthough exceedingly common in the superstitious periphrases of the\nlater Jewish literature. As to the story of the strange lycanthropy\nwith which Nebuchadrezzar was afflicted, though it receives nothing\nbut the faintest shadow of support from any historic record, it may\nbe based on some fact preserved by tradition. It is probably meant\nto reflect on the mad ways of Antiochus. The general phrase of\nBerossus, which tells us that Nebuchadrezzar \"fell into a sickness\nand died,\"[117] has been pressed into an historical verification of\nthis narrative! But the phrase might have been equally well used\nin the most ordinary case,[118] which shows what fancies have been\nadduced to prove that we are here dealing with history. The fragment\nof Abydenus in his _Assyriaca_, preserved by Eusebius,[119] shows\nthat there was _some_ story about Nebuchadrezzar having uttered\nremarkable words upon his palace-roof. The announcement of a coming\nirrevocable calamity to the kingdom from a Persian mule, \"the son of\na Median woman,\" and the wish that \"_the alien conqueror_\" might be\ndriven \"through the desert where wild beasts seek their food, and\nbirds fly hither and thither,\" has, however, very little to do with\nthe story of Nebuchadrezzar's madness. Abydenus says that, \"when he\nhad thus prophesied, he suddenly vanished\"; and he adds nothing about\nany restoration to health or to his kingdom. All that can be said is\nthat there was current among the Babylonian Jews some popular legend\nof which the writer of the Book of Daniel availed himself for the\npurpose of his edifying _Midrash_.\n\nXI. When we reach the fifth chapter, we are faced by a new king,\nBelshazzar, who is somewhat emphatically called the son of\nNebuchadrezzar.[120]\n\nHistory knows of no such king.[121] The prince of whom it _does_ know\nwas never king, and was a son, not of Nebuchadrezzar, but of the\nusurper Nabunaid; and between Nebuchadrezzar and Nabunaid there were\nthree other kings.[122]\n\nThere _was_ a Belshazzar--_Bel-sar-utsur_, \"Bel protect the\nprince\"--and we possess a clay cylinder of his father Nabunaid, the\nlast king of Babylon, praying the moon-god that \"my son, the offspring\nof my heart, might honour his godhead, and not give himself to\nsin.\"[123] But if we follow Herodotus, this Belshazzar never came to\nthe throne; and according to Berossus he was conquered in Borsippa.\nXenophon, indeed, speaks of \"an impious king\" as being slain in\nBabylon; but this is only in an avowed romance which has not the\nsmallest historic validity.[124] Schrader conjectures that Nabunaid may\nhave gone to take the field against Cyrus (who conquered and pardoned\nhim, and allowed him to end his days as governor of Karamania), and\nthat Belshazzar may have been killed in Babylon. These are mere\nhypotheses; as are those of Josephus,[125] who identifies Belshazzar\nwith Nabunaid (whom he calls Naboandelon); and of Babelon, who tries\nto make him the same as Maruduk-shar-utsur (as though Bel was the\nsame as Maruduk), which is impossible, as this king reigned _before_\nNabunaid. No contemporary writer could have fallen into the error\neither of calling Belshazzar \"king\"; or of insisting on his being \"the\nson\" of Nebuchadrezzar;[126] or of representing him as Nebuchadrezzar's\nsuccessor. Nebuchadrezzar was succeeded by--\n\n  Evil-merodach               _circ._ B.C. 561 (Avil-marduk).[127]\n  Nergal-sharezer                      \"   559 (Nergal-sar-utsur).\n  Lakhabbashi-marudu }                 \"   555 (an infant).\n    (Laborosoarchod) }\n  Nabunaid                             \"   554.\n\nNabunaid reigned till about B.C. 538, when Babylon was taken by Cyrus.\n\nThe conduct of Belshazzar in the great feast of this chapter is\nprobably meant as an allusive contrast to the revels and impieties of\nAntiochus Epiphanes, especially in his infamous festival at the grove\nof Daphne.\n\nXII. \"That night,\" we are told, \"Belshazzar, the Chaldean king,\nwas slain.\" It has always been supposed that this was an incident\nof the capture of Babylon by assault, in accordance with the story\nof Herodotus, repeated by so many subsequent writers. But on this\npoint the inscriptions of Cyrus have _revolutionised_ our knowledge.\n\"_There was no siege and capture of Babylon_; the capital of\nthe Babylonian Empire opened its gates to the general of Cyrus.\nGobryas and his soldiers entered the city without fighting, and\nthe daily services in the great temple of Bel-merodach suffered no\ninterruption. Three months later Cyrus himself arrived, and made his\npeaceful entry into the new capital of his empire. We gather from the\ncontract-tablets that even the ordinary business of the place had not\nbeen affected by the war. The siege and capture of Babylon by Cyrus\n_is really a reflection into the past of the actual sieges undergone\nby the city in the reigns of Darius, son of Hystaspes and Xerxes_.\nIt is clear, then, that the editor of the fifth chapter of the Book\nof Daniel could have been as little a contemporary of the events he\nprofesses to record as Herodotus. For both alike, the true history\nof the Babylonian Empire has been overclouded and foreshortened by\nthe lapse of time. The three kings who reigned between Nebuchadrezzar\nand Nabunaid have been forgotten, and the last king of the Babylonian\nEmpire has become the son of its founder.\"[128]\n\nSnatching at the merest straws, those who try to vindicate the accuracy\nof the writer--although he makes Belshazzar a king, which he never was;\nand the son of Nebuchadrezzar, which is not the case; or his grandson,\nof which there is no tittle of evidence; and his successor, whereas\nfour kings intervened;--think that they improve the case by urging\nthat Daniel was made \"the third ruler in the kingdom\"--Nabunaid being\nthe first, and Belshazzar being the second! Unhappily for their very\nprecarious hypothesis, the translation \"third ruler\" appears to be\nentirely untenable. It means \"one of a board of three.\"\n\nXIII. In the sixth chapter we are again met by difficulty after\ndifficulty.\n\nWho, for instance, was Darius the Mede? We are told (v. 30, 31) that,\non the night of his impious banquet, \"Belshazzar the king of the\nChaldeans\" was slain, \"and Darius the Median took the kingdom, being\nabout threescore and two years old.\" We are also told that Daniel\n\"prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the\nPersian\" (vi. 28). But this Darius is not even noticed elsewhere.\nCyrus was the conqueror of Babylon, and between B.C. 538-536 there is\nno room or possibility for a Median ruler.\n\nThe inference which we should naturally draw from these statements\nin the Book of Daniel, and which all readers have drawn, was that\nBabylon had been conquered by the Medes, and that only after the\ndeath of a Median king did Cyrus the Persian succeed.\n\nBut historic monuments and records entirely overthrow this\nsupposition. Cyrus was the king of Babylon from the day that his\ntroops entered it without a blow. He had conquered the Medes\nand suppressed their royalty. \"The numerous contract-tables of\nthe ordinary daily business transactions of Babylon, dated as\nthey are month by month, and almost day by day from the reign of\nNebuchadrezzar to that of Xerxes, prove that between Nabonidus and\nCyrus _there was no intermediate ruler_.\" The contemporary scribes\nand merchants of Babylon knew nothing of any King Belshazzar, and\nthey knew even less of any King Darius the Mede. No contemporary\nwriter could possibly have fallen into such an error.[129]\n\nAnd against this obvious conclusion, of what possible avail is it for\nHengstenberg to quote a late Greek lexicographer (_Harpocration_,\nA.D. 170?), who says that the coin \"a daric\" was named after a Darius\nearlier than the father of Xerxes?--or for others to identify this\nshadowy Darius the Mede with Astyages?[130]--or with Cyaxares II.\nin the romance of Xenophon?[131]--or to say that Darius the Mede\nis Gobryas (Ugbaru) of Gutium[132]--a Persian, and not a king at\nall--who under no circumstances could have been called \"the king\" by\na contemporary (vi. 12, ix. 1), and whom, apparently for three months\nonly, Cyrus made governor of Babylon? How could a contemporary\ngovernor have appointed \"one hundred and twenty princes which should\nbe over the whole kingdom,\"[133] when, even in the days of Darius\nHystaspis, there were only twenty or twenty-three satrapies in the\nPersian Empire?[134] And how could a mere provincial viceroy be\napproached by \"_all the presidents of the kingdom_, the governors,\nand the princes, the counsellors, and the captains,\" to pass a decree\nthat any one who for thirty days offered any prayer to God or man,\nexcept to him, should be cast into the den of lions? The fact that\nsuch a decree could only be made by _a king_ is emphasised in the\nnarrative itself (vi. 12: comp. iii. 29). The supposed analogies\noffered by Professor Fuller and others in favour of a decree so\nabsurdly impossible--except in the admitted licence and for the high\nmoral purpose of a Jewish Haggada--are to the last degree futile.\nIn any ordinary criticism they would be set down as idle special\npleading. Yet this is only one of a multitude of wildly improbable\nincidents, which, from misunderstanding of the writer's age and\npurpose, have been taken for sober history, though they receive from\nhistorical records and monuments no shadow of confirmation, and are\nin not a few instances directly opposed to all that we now know to\nbe certain history. Even if it were conceivable that this hypothetic\n\"Darius the Mede\" was Gobryas, or Astyages, or Cyaxares, it is plain\nthat the author of Daniel gives him a name and national designation\nwhich lead to mere confusion, and speaks of him in a way which would\nhave been surely avoided by any contemporary.\n\n\"Darius the Mede,\" says Professor Sayce, \"is in fact a _reflection_\ninto the past of _Darius the son of Hystaspes_,[135] just as the\nsiege and capture of Babylon by Cyrus are a reflection into the past\nof its siege and capture by the same prince. The name of Darius and\nthe story of the slaughter of the Chaldean king go together. They\nare alike derived from the unwritten history which, in the East of\nto-day, is still made by the people, and which blends together in a\nsingle picture the manifold events and personages of the past. It\nis a history which has no perspective, though it is based on actual\nfacts; the accurate combinations of the chronologer have no meaning\nfor it, and the events of a century are crowded into a few years.\nThis is the kind of history which the Jewish _mind in the age of the\nTalmud loved to adapt to moral and religious purposes_. This kind of\nhistory then becomes as _it were a parable, and under the name of\nHaggada serves to illustrate that teaching of the law_.\"[136]\n\nThe favourable view given of the character of the imaginary Darius\nthe Mede, and his regard for Daniel, may have been a confusion with\nthe Jewish reminiscences of Darius, son of Hystaspes, who permitted\nthe rebuilding of the Temple under Zerubbabel.[137]\n\nIf we look for the _source_ of the confusion, we see it perhaps in\nthe prophecy of Isaiah (xiii. 17, xiv. 6-22), that the _Medes_ should\nbe the destroyers of Babylon; or in that of Jeremiah--a prophet\nof whom the author had made a special study (Dan. ix. 2)--to the\nsame effect (Jer. li. 11-28); together with the tradition that _a_\nDarius--namely, the son of Hystaspes--_had_ once conquered Babylon.\n\nXIV. But to make confusion worse confounded, if these chapters were\nmeant for history, the problematic \"Darius the Mede\" is in Dan. ix. 1\ncalled \"the son of Ahasuerus.\"\n\nNow Ahasuerus (Achashverosh) is the same as Xerxes, and is the\n_Persian_ name Khshyarsha; and Xerxes was the _son_, not the father,\nof Darius Hystaspis, who was a _Persian_, not a Mede. Before Darius\nHystaspis could have been transformed into the son of his own son\nXerxes, the reigns, not only of Darius, but also of Xerxes, must have\nlong been past.\n\nXV. There is yet another historic sign that this Book did not\noriginate till the Persian Empire had long ceased to exist. In xi.\n2 the writer only knows of _four_ kings of Persia.[138] These are\nevidently Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius Hystaspis, and Xerxes--whom he\ndescribes as the richest of them. This king is destroyed by the\nkingdom of Grecia--an obvious confusion of popular tradition between\nthe defeat inflicted on the Persians by the Republican Greeks in the\ndays of Xerxes (B.C. 480), and the overthrow of the Persian kingdom\nunder Darius Codomannus by Alexander the Great (B.C. 333).\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThese, then, are some of the apparent historic impossibilities by which\nwe are confronted when we regard this Book as professed history. The\ndoubts suggested by such seeming errors are not in the least removed\nby the acervation of endless conjectures. They are greatly increased\nby the fact that, so far from standing alone, they are intensified by\nother difficulties which arise under every fresh aspect under which the\nBook is studied. Behrmann, the latest editor, sums up his studies with\nthe remark that \"there is an almost universal agreement that the Book,\nin its present form and as a whole, had its origin in the Maccabean\nage; while there is a widening impression that in its purpose it is\nnot an exclusive product of that period.\" No amount of casuistical\ningenuity can long prevail to overthrow the spreading conviction that\nthe views of Hengstenberg, H\u00e4vernick, Keil, Pusey, and their followers,\nhave been refuted by the light of advancing knowledge--which is a light\nkindled for us by God Himself.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[90] Thus Dr. Pusey says: \"The Book of Daniel is especially fitted\nto be a battle-field _between faith and unbelief_. It admits of no\nhalf-measures. It is either Divine or an imposture. To write any\nbook under the name of another, and to give it out to be his, is,\nin any case, a forgery dishonest in itself, and destructive of all\ntrustworthiness. But the case of the Book of Daniel, if it were not\nhis, would go far beyond even this. The writer, were _he_ not Daniel,\n_must_ have _lied_ on a frightful scale. In a word, the whole Book\nwould be one lie in the Name of God.\" Few would venture to use such\nlanguage in _these_ days. It is always a perilous style to adopt,\nbut now it has become suicidal. It is founded on an immense and\ninexcusable anachronism. It avails itself of an utterly false misuse\nof the words \"faith\" and \"unbelief,\" by which \"faith\" becomes a mere\nsynonym for \"that which I esteem orthodox,\" or that which has been\nthe current opinion in ages of ignorance. Much truer faith may be\nshown by accepting arguments founded on unbiassed evidence than by\nrejecting them. And what can be more foolish than to base the great\ntruths of the Christian religion on special pleadings which have now\ncome to wear the aspect of ingenious sophistries, such as would not\nbe allowed to have the smallest validity in any ordinary question\nof literary or historic evidence? Hengstenberg, like Pusey, says in\nhis violent ecclesiastical tone of autocratic infallibility that\nthe interpretation of the Book by most eminent modern critics \"will\nremain false so long as the word of Christ is true--that is, for\never.\" This is to make \"the word of Christ\" the equivalent of a mere\ntheological blindness and prejudice! Assertions which are utterly\nbaseless can only be met by assertions based on science and the love\nof truth. Thus when Rupprecht says that \"the modern criticism of the\nBook of Daniel is unchristian, immoral, and unscientific,\" we can\nonly reply with disdain, _Novimus istas_ \u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. In the present day\nthey are mere bluster of impotent _odium theologicum_.\n\n[91] Gen. xli.\n\n[92] See Lenormant, _La Divination_, p. 219.\n\n[93] Jer. xxix. 22. The tenth verse of _this very chapter_ is\nreferred to in Dan. ix. 2. The custom continued in the East centuries\nafterwards. \"And if it was known to a Roman writer (Quintus Curtius,\nv. 1) in the days of Vespasian, why\" (Mr. Bevan pertinently asks)\n\"should it not have been known to a Palestinian writer who lived\ncenturies earlier?\" (A. A. Bevan, _Short Commentary_, p. 22).\n\n[94] _Avodah-Zarah_, f. 3, 1; _Sanhedrin_, f. 93, 1; _Pesachim_, f.\n118, 1; _Eiruvin_, f. 53, 1.\n\n[95] Jer. lii. 28-30. These were in the reign of Jehoiachin.\n\n[96] Jer. xlvi. 2: comp. Jer. xxv. The passage of Berossus, quoted in\nJos., _Antt._ X. xi. 1, is not trustworthy, and does not remove the\ndifficulty.\n\n[97] The attempts of Keil and Pusey to get over the difficulty,\nif they were valid, would reduce Scripture to a hopeless riddle.\nThe reader will see all the latest efforts in this direction in\nthe _Speaker's Commentary_ and the work of Fabre d'Envieu. Even\nsuch \"orthodox\" writers as Dorner, Delitzsch, and Gess, not to\nmention hosts of other great critics, have long seen the desperate\nimpossibility of these arguments.\n\n[98] _Balatsu-utsur_, \"protect his life.\" The root _bal\u00e2tu_, \"life,\"\nis common in Assyrian names. The mistake comes from the wrong\nvocalisation adopted by the Massorets (Meinhold, _Beitr\u00e4ge_, p. 27).\n\n[99] Schrader dubiously connects it with _matstsara_, \"guardian.\"\n\n[100] Lenormant, p. 182, regards it as a corruption of Ashbenazar,\n\"the goddess has pruned the seed\" (??); but assumed corruptions of\nthe text are an uncertain expedient.\n\n[101] On these see Rob. Smith, _Cambr. Journ. of Philol._, No. 27, p.\n125.\n\n[102] Juv., _Sat._, x. 96: \"Cum grege Chald\u00e6o\"; Val. Max., iii. 1;\nCic., _De Div._, i. 1, etc.\n\n[103] _Keilinschr._, p. 429; Meinhold, p. 28.\n\n[104] Isa. xxiii. 13; Jer. xxv. 12; Ezek. xii. 13; Hab. i. 6.\n\n[105] Jos., _Antt._, XI. viii. 5.\n\n[106] Isa. xlix. 23.\n\n[107] Isa. lx. 14.\n\n[108] Acts xii. 22, 23.\n\n[109] Acts xiv. 11, 12, xxviii. 6.\n\n[110] See Jer. xxxix. 3. And if he held this position, how could he\nbe absent in chap. iii.?\n\n[111] Namely, the words for \"satraps,\" \"governors,\" \"counsellors,\"\nand \"judges,\" as well as the courtiers in iii. 24. Bleek thinks that\nto enhance the stateliness of the occasion the writer introduced as\nmany official names as he knew.\n\n[112] _Supra_, p. 23.\n\n[113] Athen., _Deipnos._, iv. 175.\n\n[114] The Persian titles in iii. 24 alone suffice to indicate that\nthis could not be Nebuchadrezzar's actual decree. See further,\nMeinhold, pp. 30, 31. We are evidently dealing with a writer who\nintroduces many Persian words, with no consciousness that they could\nnot have been used by Babylonian kings.\n\n[115] The writer of Daniel was evidently acquainted with the Book of\nEzekiel. See Delitzsch in Herzog, _s.v._ \"Daniel,\" and Driver, p. 476.\n\n[116] See iv. 16, 25-30.\n\n[117] Preserved by Jos.: comp. _Ap._, I. 20.\n\n[118] The phrase is common enough: _e.g._, in Jos., _Antt._, X. xi. 1\n(comp. _c. Ap._, I. 19); and a similar phrase, \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd,\n_is used of Antiochus Epiphanes_ in 1 Macc. vi. 8.\n\n[119] _Pr\u00e6p. Ev._, ix. 41. Schrader (_K. A. T._, ii. 432) thinks that\nBerossus and the Book of Daniel may both point to the same tradition;\nbut the Chaldee tradition quoted by the late writer Abydenus errs\nlikewise in only recognising _two_ Babylonish kings instead of\n_four_, exclusive of Belshazzar. See, too, Schrader, _Jahrb. f\u00fcr\nProt. Theol._, 1881, p. 618.\n\n[120] Dan. v. 11. The emphasis seems to show that \"son\" is really\nmeant--not grandson. This is a little strange, for Jeremiah\n(xxvii. 7) had said that the nations should serve Nebuchadrezzar,\n\"and his son, _and his son's son_\"; and in no case was Belshazzar\nNebuchadrezzar's _son's son_, for his father Nabunaid was an usurping\nson of a Rab-mag.\n\n[121] Schrader, p. 434 ff.; and in Riehm, _Handw\u00f6rterb._, ii. 163;\nPinches, in Smith's _Bibl. Dict._, i. 388, 2nd edn. The contraction\ninto Belshazzar from _Bel-sar-utsur_ seems to show a late date.\n\n[122] That the author of Daniel should have fallen into these errors\nis the more remarkable because Evil-merodach is mentioned in 2 Kings\nxxv. 27; and Jeremiah in his round number of seventy years includes\n_three_ generations (Jer. xxvii. 7). Herodotus and Abydenus made the\nsame mistake. See Kamphausen, pp. 30, 31.\n\n[123] Herod., i. 191. See Rawlinson, _Herod._, i. 434.\n\n[124] Xen., _Cyrop._, VII. v. 3.\n\n[125] _Antt._, X. xi. 2. In _c. Ap._, I. 20, he calls him Nabonnedus.\n\n[126] This is now supposed to mean \"grandson by marriage,\" by\ninventing the hypothesis that Nabunaid married a daughter of\nNebuchadrezzar. But this does not accord with Dan. v. 2, 11, 22; and\nso in Baruch i. 11, 12.\n\n[127] 2 Kings xxv. 27.\n\n[128] Sayce, _The Higher Criticism and the Monuments_, p. 527.\n\n[129] I need not enter here upon the confusion of the Manda with the\nMedes, on which see Sayce, _Higher Criticism and Monuments_, p. 519 ff.\n\n[130] Winer, _Realw\u00f6rterb._, _s.v._ \"Darius.\"\n\n[131] So Bertholdt, Von Lengerke, Auberlen. It is decidedly rejected\nby Schrader (Riehm, _Handw\u00f6rterb._, i. 259). Even Cicero said,\n\"Cyrus ille a Xenophonte non ad histori\u00e6 fidem scriptus est\" (_Ad\nQuint. Fratr._, Ep. i. 3). Niebuhr called the _Cyrop\u00e6dia_ \"einen\n_elenden_ und l\u00e4ppischen Roman\" (_Alt. Gesch._, i. 116). He classes\nit with _T\u00e9l\u00e9maque_ or _Rasselas_. Xenophon was probably the ultimate\nauthority for the statement of Josephus (_Antt._, X. xi. 4), which\nhas no weight. Herodotus and Ktesias know nothing of the existence of\nany Cyaxares II., nor does the Second Isaiah (xlv.), who evidently\ncontemplates Cyrus as the conqueror and the first king of Babylon.\nAre we to set a professed romancer like Xenophon, and a late compiler\nlike Josephus, against these authorities?\n\n[132] T. W. Pinches, in Smith's _Bibl. Dict._, i. 716, 2nd edn. Into\nthis theory are pressed the general expressions that Darius \"received\nthe kingdom\" and was \"made king,\" which have not the least bearing\non it. They may simply mean that he became king by conquest, and not\nin the ordinary course--so Rosenm\u00fcller, Hitzig, Von Lengerke, etc.;\nor perhaps the words show some sense of uncertainty as to the exact\ncourse of events. The sequence of Persian kings in _Seder Olam_,\n28-30, and in Rashi on Dan. v. 1, ix. 1, is equally unhistorical.\n\n[133] This is supported by the remark that this three-months viceroy\n\"appointed governors in Babylon\"!\n\n[134] Herod., iii. 89; _Records of the Past_, viii. 88.\n\n[135] See, too, Meinhold (_Beitr\u00e4ge_, p. 46), who concludes his\nsurvey with the words, \"Sprachliche wie sachliche Gr\u00fcnde machen\nes _nicht nur wahrscheinlich sondern gewiss_ dass an danielsche\nAutorschaft von Dan. ii.-vi., \u00fcberhanpt an die Entstehung zur Zeit\nder j\u00fcdischen Verbannung nicht zu denken ist.\" He adds that almost\nall scholars believe the chapters to be no older than the age of the\nMaccabees, and that even Kahnis (_Dogmatik_, i. 376) and Delitzsch\n(Herzog, _s.v._ \"Dan.\") give up their genuineness. He himself\nbelieves that these Aramaic chapters were _incorporated_ by a later\nwriter, who wrote the introduction.\n\n[136] Sayce. _l.c._, p. 529.\n\n[137] Kamphausen, p. 45.\n\n[138] Sayce, _l.c._ The author of the Book of Daniel seems only\nto have known of _three_ kings of Persia after Cyrus (xi. 2). But\nfive are mentioned in the Old Testament--Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes,\nXerxes, and Darius III. (Codomannus, Neh. xii. 22). There were three\nDariuses and three Artaxerxes, but he only knows one of each name\n(Kamphausen, p. 32). He might easily have overlooked the fact that\nthe Darius of Neh. xii. 22 was a wholly different person from the\nDarius of Ezra vi. 1.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n\n                    _GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK_\n\n\nIn endeavouring to see the idea and construction of a book there is\nalways much room for the play of subjective considerations. Meinhold\nhas especially studied this subject, but we cannot be certain that\nhis views are more than imaginative. He thinks that chap. ii.,\nin which we are strongly reminded of the story of Joseph and of\nPharaoh's dreams, is intended to set forth God as Omniscient, and\nchap. iii. as Omnipotent. To these conceptions is added in chap. iv.\nthe insistence upon God's All-holiness. The fifth and sixth chapters\nform one conception. Since the death of Belshazzar is assigned to the\nnight of his banquet no edict could be ascribed to him resembling\nthose attributed to Nebuchadrezzar. The effect of Daniel's character\nand of the Divine protection accorded to him on the mind of Darius\nis expressed in the strong edict of the latter in vi. 26, 27. This\nis meant to illustrate that the All-wise, Almighty, All-holy God is\nthe Only Living God. The consistent and homogeneous object of the\nwhole historic section is to set forth the God of the Hebrews as\nexalting Himself in the midst of heathendom, and extorting submission\nby mighty portents from heathen potentates. In this the Book offers\na general analogy to the section of the history of the Israelites in\nEgypt narrated in Exod. i. 12. The culmination of recognition as to\nthe power of God is seen in the decree of Darius (vi. 26, 27), as\ncompared with that of Nebuchadrezzar in iv. 33. According to this\nview, the meaning and essence of each separate chapter are given\nin its closing section, and there is artistic advance to the great\nclimax, marked alike by the resemblances of these four paragraphs\n(ii. 47, iii. 28, 29, iv. 37, vi. 26, 27), and by their differences.\nTo this main purpose all the other elements of these splendid\npictures--the faithfulness of Hebrew worshippers, the abasement\nof blaspheming despots, the mission of Israel to the nations--are\nsubordinated. The chief aim is to set forth the helpless humiliation\nof all false gods before the might of the God of Israel. It might be\nexpressed in the words, \"Of a truth, Lord, the kings of Assyria have\nlaid waste all the nations, and cast their gods into the fire; for\nthey were no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone.\"\n\nA closer glance at these chapters will show some grounds for these\nconclusions.\n\nThus, in the second chapter, the magicians and sorcerers repudiate\nall possibility of revealing the king's dream and its interpretation,\nbecause they are but men, and the gods have not their dwelling with\nmortal flesh (ii. 11); but Daniel can tell the dream because he\nstands near to his God, who, though He is in heaven, yet is All-wise,\nand revealeth secrets.\n\nIn the third chapter the destruction of the strongest soldiers of\nNebuchadrezzar by fire, and the absolute deliverance of the three\nJews whom they have flung into the furnace, convince Nebuchadrezzar\nthat no god can deliver as the Almighty does, and that therefore it\nis blasphemy deserving of death to utter a word against Him.\n\nIn chap. iv. the supremacy of Daniel's wisdom as derived from God,\nthe fulfilment of the threatened judgment, and the deliverance of the\nmighty King of Babylon from his degrading madness when he lifts up\nhis eyes to heaven, convince Nebuchadrezzar still more deeply that\nGod is not only a _Great_ God, but that no other being, man or god,\ncan even be compared to Him. He is the Only and the Eternal God, who\n\"_doeth according to His will in the army of heaven_,\" as well as\n\"among the inhabitants of the earth,\" and \"none can stay His hand.\"\nThis is the highest point of conviction. Nebuchadrezzar confesses\nthat God is not only _Primus inter pares_, but the Irresistible\nGod, and his own God. And after this, in the fifth chapter, Daniel\ncan speak to Belshazzar of \"the Lord of heaven\" (v. 23); and as the\nking's Creator; and of the nothingness of gods of silver, and gold,\nand brass, and wood, and stone;--as though those truths had already\nbeen decisively proved. And this belief finds open expression in the\ndecree of Darius (vi. 26, 27), which concludes the historic section.\n\nIt is another indication of this main purpose of these histories that\nthe plural form of the Name of God--_Eloh\u00eem_--does not once occur\nin chaps. ii.-vi. It is used in i. 2, 9, 17; but not again till the\nninth chapter, where it occurs twelve times; once in the tenth (x.\n12); and twice of God in the eleventh chapter (xi. 32, 37). In the\nprophetic section (vii. 18, 22, 25, 27) we have \"Most High\" in the\nplural (_'elion\u00een_);[139] but with reference only to the One God\n(see vii. 25). But in all cases where the heathen are addressed this\nplural becomes the singular (_ehlleh_, \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4), as throughout the\nfirst six chapters. This avoidance of so common a word as the plural\n_Eloh\u00eem_ for God, because the plural form might conceivably have been\nmisunderstood by the heathen, shows the elaborate construction of the\nBook.[140] God is called _Eloah_ Shama\u00een, \"God of heaven,\" in the\nsecond and third chapters; but in later chapters we have the common\npost-exilic phrase in the plural.[141]\n\nIn the fourth and fifth chapters we have God's Holiness first brought\nbefore us, chiefly on its avenging side; and it is not till we have\nwitnessed the proof of His Unity, Wisdom, Omnipotence, and Justice,\nwhich it is the mission of Israel to make manifest among the heathen,\nthat all is summed up in the edict of Darius to all people, nations,\nand languages.\n\nThe omission of any express recognition of God's tender compassion\nis due to the structure of these chapters; for it would hardly be\npossible for heathen potentates to recognise that attribute in the\nimmediate presence of His judgments. It is somewhat remarkable that\nthe name \"Jehovah\" is avoided.[142] As the Jews purposely pronounced\nit with wrong vowels, and the LXX. render it by \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, the Samaritan\nby \u05e9\u05d9\u05de\u05d4, and the Rabbis by \"the Name,\" so we find in the Book of\nDaniel a similar avoidance of the awful Tetragrammaton.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[139] Literally, as in margin, \"_most high things_\" or \"_places_.\"\n\n[140] In iv. 5, 6; and _eloh\u00een_ means \"gods\" in the mouth of a\nheathen (\"spirit of the holy gods\").\n\n[141] _Eloh\u00een_ occurs repeatedly in chap. ix., and in x. 12, xi. 32, 37.\n\n[142] It only occurs in Dan. ix.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n\n                  _THE THEOLOGY OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL_\n\n\nAs regards the religious views of the Book of Daniel some of them at\nany rate are in full accordance with the belief in the late origin of\nthe Book to which we are led by so many indications.[143]\n\nI. Thus in Dan. xii. 2 (for we may here so far anticipate the\nexamination of the second section of the Book) we meet, for the first\ntime in Scripture, with a distinct recognition of the resurrection\nof the individual dead.[144] This, as all know, is a doctrine of\nwhich we only find the faintest indication in the earlier books of\nthe Canon. Although the doctrine is still but dimly formulated, it is\nclearer in this respect than Isa. xxv. 8, xxvi. 19.\n\nII. Still more remarkable is the special prominence of angels. It is\nnot God who goes forth to war (Judg. v. 13, 23), or takes personal\npart in the deliverance or punishment of nations (Isa. v. 26, vii.\n18). Throned in isolated and unapproachable transcendence, He uses\nthe agency of intermediate beings (Dan. iv. 14).[145]\n\nIn full accordance with late developments of Jewish opinion angels\nare mentioned by special names, and appear as Princes and Protectors\nof special lands.[146] In no other book in the Old Testament have\nwe any names given to angels, or any distinction between their\ndignities, or any trace of their being in mutual rivalry as Princes\nor Patrons of different nationalities. These remarkable features of\nangelology only occur in the later epoch, and in the apocalyptic\nliterature to which this Book belongs. Thus they are found in the\nLXX. translations of Deut. xxxii. 8 and Isa. xxx. 4, and in such\npost-Maccabean books as those of Enoch and Esdras.[147]\n\nIII. Again, we have the fixed custom of three daily formal prayers,\nuttered towards the Kibleh of Jerusalem. This may, possibly, have\nbegun during the Exile. It became a normal rule for later ages.[148]\nThe Book, however, like that of Jonah, is, as a whole, remarkably\nfree from any extravagant estimate of Levitical minuti\u00e6.\n\nIV. Once more, for the first time in Jewish story, we find extreme\nimportance attached to the Levitical distinction of clean and unclean\nmeats, which also comes into prominence in the age of the Maccabees,\nas it afterwards constituted a most prominent element in the ideal\nof Talmudic religionism.[149] Daniel and the Three Children are\nvegetarians, like the Pharisees after the destruction of the Second\nTemple, mentioned in _Baba Bathra_, f. 60, 2.\n\nV. We have already noticed the avoidance of the sacred name \"Jehovah\"\neven in passages addressed to Jews (Dan. ii. 18), though we find\n\"Jehovah\" in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 7. Jehovah only occurs in reference to\nJer. xxv. 8-11, and in the prayer of the ninth chapter, where we also\nfind _Adonai_ and _Eloh\u00eem_.\n\nPeriphrases for God, like \"the Ancient of Days,\" become normal in\nTalmudic literature.\n\nVI. Again, the doctrine of the Messiah, like these other doctrines,\nis, as Professor Driver says, \"taught with greater distinctness and in\na more developed form than elsewhere in the Old Testament, and with\nfeatures approximating to, though not identical with, those met with\nin the earlier parts of the Book of Enoch (B.C. 100). In one or two\ninstances these developments may have been partially moulded by foreign\ninfluences.[150] They undoubtedly mark a later phase of revelation\nthan that which is set before us in other books of the Old Testament.\nAnd the conclusion indicated by these _special_ features in the Book\nis confirmed by the _general_ atmosphere which we breathe throughout\nit. The atmosphere and tone are not those of any other writings\nbelonging to the Jews of the Exile; it is rather that of the Maccabean\n_Chasid\u00eem_.\" How far the Messianic _Bar Enosh_ (vii. 13) is meant to be\n_a person_ will be considered in the comment on that passage.\n\nWe shall see in later pages that the supreme value and importance\nof the Book of Daniel, rightly understood, consists in this--that\n\"it is the first attempt at a Philosophy, or rather at a Theology of\nHistory.\"[151] Its main object was to teach the crushed and afflicted\nto place unshaken confidence in God.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[143] The description of God as \"the Ancient of Days\" with garments\nwhite as snow, and of His throne of flames on burning wheels, is\nfound again in the Book of Enoch, written about B.C. 141 (Enoch xiv.).\n\n[144] See Dan. xii. 2. Comp. Jos., _B. J._, II. viii. 14; Enoch xxii.\n13, lx. 1-5, etc.\n\n[145] Comp. Smend, _Alttest. Relig. Gesch._, p. 530. For references\nto angels in Old Testament see Job i. 6, xxxviii. 7; Jer. xxiii. 18;\nPsalm lxxxix. 7; Josh. v. 13-15; Zech. i. 12, iii. 1. See further\nBehrmann, _Dan._, p. xxiii.\n\n[146] Dan. iv. 14, ix. 21, x. 13, 20.\n\n[147] See Enoch lxxi. 17, lxviii. 10, and the six archangels Uriel,\nRaphael, Reguel, Michael, Saragael, and Gabriel in Enoch xx.-xxxvi.\nSee _Rosh Hashanah_, f. 56, 1; _Beresh\u00eeth Rabba_, c. 48; Hamburger,\ni. 305-312.\n\n[148] _Berach\u00f4th_, f. 31; Dan. vi. 11. Comp. Psalm lv. 18; 1 Kings\nviii. 38-48.\n\n[149] 1 Macc. i. 62; Dan. i. 8; 2 Macc. v. 27, vi. 18-vii. 42.\n\n[150] Introd., p. 477. Comp. 2 Esdras xiii. 41-45, and _passim_;\nEnoch xl., xlv., xlvi., xlix., and _passim_; Hamburger,\n_Real-Encycl._, ii. 267 ff. With \"the time of the end\" and the\nnumerical calculations comp. 2 Esdras vi. 6, 7.\n\n[151] Roszmann, _Die Makkab\u00e4ische Erhebung_, p. 45. See Wellhausen,\n_Die Pharis. u. d. Sadd._, 77 ff.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI\n\n                 _PECULIARITIES OF THE APOCALYPTIC AND\n                     PROPHETIC SECTION OF THE BOOK_\n\n\nIf we have found much to lead us to serious doubts as to the\nauthenticity and genuineness--_i.e._, as to the literal historicity\nand the real author--of the Book of Daniel in its historic section,\nwe shall find still more in the prophetic section. If the phenomena\nalready passed in review are more than enough to indicate the\nimpossibility that the Book could have been written by the historic\nDaniel, the phenomena now to be considered are such as have sufficed\nto convince the immense majority of learned critics that, in its\npresent form, the Book did not appear before the days of Antiochus\nEpiphanes.[152] The probable date is B.C. 164. As in the Book of Enoch\nxc. 15, 16, it contains history written under the form of prophecy.\n\nLeaving minuter examination to later chapters of commentary, we will\nnow take a brief survey of this unique apocalypse.\n\nI. As regards the style and method the only distant approach to it\nin the rest of the Old Testament is in a few visions of Ezekiel\nand Zechariah, which differ greatly from the clear, and so to\nspeak classic, style of the older prophets. But in Daniel we\nfind visions far more enigmatical, and far less full of passion\nand poetry. Indeed, as regards style and intellectual force, the\nsplendid historic scenes of chaps. i.-vi. far surpass the visions\nof vii.-xii., some of which have been described as \"composite\nlogographs,\" in which the ideas are forcibly juxtaposed without care\nfor any coherence in the symbols--as, for instance, when _a horn_\nspeaks and has eyes.[153]\n\nChap. vii. contains a vision of four different wild beasts rising\nfrom the sea: a lion, with eagle-wings, which afterwards becomes\nsemi-human; a bear, leaning on one side, and having three ribs in its\nmouth; a four-winged, four-headed panther; and a still more terrible\ncreature, with iron teeth, brazen claws, and ten horns, among which\nrises a little horn, which destroyed three of the others--it has\nman's eyes and a mouth speaking proud things.\n\nThere follows an epiphany of the Ancient of Days, who destroys the\nlittle horn, but prolongs for a time the existence of the other wild\nbeasts. Then comes One in human semblance, who is brought before the\nAncient of Days, and is clothed by Him with universal and eternal power.\n\nWe shall see reasons for the view that the four beasts--in\naccordance with the interpretation of the vision given to Daniel\nhimself--represent the Babylonian, the Median, the Persian, and\nthe Greek empires, issuing in the separate kingdoms of Alexander's\nsuccessors; and that the little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes, whose\noverthrow is to be followed immediately by the Messianic Kingdom.[154]\n\nThe vision of the eighth chapter mainly pursues the history of\nthe fourth of these kingdoms. Daniel sees a ram standing eastward\nof the river-basin of the Ulai, having two horns, of which one is\nhigher than the other. It butts westward, northward, and southward,\nand seemed irresistible, until a he-goat from the West, with one\nhorn between its eyes, confronted it, and stamped it to pieces.\nAfter this its one horn broke into four towards the four winds of\nheaven, and one of them shot forth a puny horn, which grew great\ntowards the South and East, and acted tyrannously against the Holy\nPeople, and spoke blasphemously against God. Daniel hears the holy\nones declaring that its powers shall only last two thousand three\nhundred evening-mornings. An angel bids Gabriel to explain the vision\nto Daniel; and Gabriel tells the seer that the ram represents the\nMedo-Persian and the he-goat the Greek Kingdom. Its great horn is\nAlexander; the four horns are the kingdoms of his successors, the\nDiadochi; the little horn is a king bold of vision and versed in\nenigmas, whom all agree to be Antiochus Epiphanes.\n\nIn the ninth chapter we are told that Daniel has been meditating on the\nprophecy of Jeremiah that Jerusalem should be rebuilt after seventy\nyears, and as the seventy years seem to be drawing to a close he\nhumbles himself with prayer and fasting. But Gabriel comes flying to\nhim at the time of the evening sacrifice, and explains to him that\nthe seventy years is to mean seventy _weeks_ of years--_i.e._, four\nhundred and ninety years, divided into three periods of 7 + 62 + 1. At\nthe end of seven (_i.e._, forty-nine) years an anointed prince will\norder the restoration of Jerusalem. The city will continue, though\nin humiliation, for sixty-two (_i.e._, four hundred and thirty-four)\nyears, when \"an anointed\" will be cut off, and a prince will destroy\nit. During half a week (_i.e._, for three and a half years) he will\ncause the sacrifice and oblation to cease; and he will make a covenant\nwith many for one week, at the end of which he will be cut off.\n\nHere, again, we shall have reason to see that the whole prophecy\nculminates in, and is mainly concerned with, Antiochus Epiphanes.\nIn fact, it furnishes us with a sketch of his fortunes, which, in\nconnexion with the eleventh chapter, tells us more about him than we\nlearn from any extant history.\n\nIn the tenth chapter Daniel, after a fast of twenty-one days, sees a\nvision of Gabriel, who explains to him why his coming has been delayed,\nsoothes his fears, touches his lips, and prepares him for the vision\nof chapter eleven. That chapter is mainly occupied with a singularly\nminute and circumstantial history of the murders, intrigues, wars, and\nintermarriages of the Lagid\u00e6 and Seleucid\u00e6. So detailed is it that in\nsome cases the history has to be reconstructed out of it. This sketch\nis followed by the doings and final overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes.\n\nThe twelfth chapter is the picture of a resurrection, and of words of\nconsolation and exhortation addressed to Daniel.\n\nSuch in briefest outline are the contents of these chapters, and\ntheir peculiarities are very marked. Until the reader has studied the\nmore detailed explanation of the chapters separately, and especially\nof the eleventh, he will be unable to estimate the enormous force of\nthe arguments adduced to prove the impossibility of such \"prophecies\"\nhaving emanated from Babylon and Susa about B.C. 536. Long before the\nastonishing enlargement of our critical knowledge which has been the\nwork of the last generation--nearly fifty years ago--the mere perusal\nof the Book as it stands produced on the manly and honest judgment\nof Dr. Arnold a strong impression of uncertainty. He said that the\nlatter chapters of Daniel would, if genuine, be a clear exception to\nthe canons of interpretation which he laid down in his _Sermons on\nProphecy_, since \"there can be no reasonable spiritual meaning made\nout of the kings of the North and South.\" \"But,\" he adds, \"I have\nlong thought that the greater part of the Book of Daniel is most\ncertainly a very late work of the time of the Maccabees; and the\npretended prophecies about the kings of Grecia and Persia, and of the\nNorth and South, are mere history, like the poetical prophecies in\nVirgil and elsewhere. In fact, you can trace distinctly the date when\nit was written, because the events up to that date are given with\nhistorical minuteness, totally unlike the character of real prophecy;\nand beyond that date all is imaginary.\"[155]\n\nThe Book is the earliest specimen of its kind known to us. It\ninaugurated a new and important branch of Jewish literature, which\ninfluenced many subsequent writers. An apocalypse, so far as its\nliterary form is concerned, \"claims throughout to be a supernatural\nrevelation given to mankind by the mouth of those men in whose names\nthe various writings appear.\" An apocalypse--such, for instance, as\nthe Books of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, Baruch, 1, 2 Esdras,\nand the Sibylline Oracles--is characterised by its enigmatic form,\nwhich shrouds its meaning in parables and symbols. It indicates\npersons without naming them, and shadows forth historic events under\nanimal forms, or as operations of Nature. Even the explanations which\nfollow, as in this Book, are still mysterious and indirect.\n\nII. In the next place an apocalypse is literary, not oral. Sch\u00fcrer, who\nclasses Daniel among the oldest and most original of _pseudepigraphic\nprophecies_, etc., rightly says that \"the old prophets in their\nteachings and exhortations addressed themselves directly to the people\nfirst and foremost through their oral utterances; and then, but only as\nsubordinate to these, by written discourses as well. But now, when men\nfelt themselves at any time compelled by their religious enthusiasm to\ninfluence their contemporaries, instead of directly addressing them in\nperson like the prophets of old, they did so by a writing purporting\nto be the work of some one or other of the great names of the past, in\nthe hope that in this way the effect would be all the surer and all the\nmore powerful.\"[156] The Daniel of this Book represents himself, not\nas a prophet, but as a humble student of the prophets. He no longer\nclaims, as Isaiah did, to speak in the Name of God Himself with a \"Thus\nsaith Jehovah.\"\n\nIII. Thirdly, it is impossible not to notice that Daniel differs\nfrom all other prophecies by its all-but-total indifference to the\ncircumstances and surroundings in the midst of which the prediction\nis supposed to have originated. The Daniel of Babylon and Susa is\nrepresented as the writer; yet his whole interest is concentrated,\nnot in the events which immediately interest the Jews of Babylon in\nthe days of Cyrus, or of Jerusalem under Zerubbabel, but deals with\na number of predictions which revolve almost exclusively about the\nreign of a very inferior king four centuries afterwards. And with\nthis king the predictions abruptly stop short, and are followed by\nthe very general promise of an immediate Messianic age.\n\nWe may notice further the constant use of round and cyclic numbers,\nsuch as three and its compounds (i. 5, iii. 1, vi. 7, 10, vii. 5,\n8); four (ii., vii. 6, and viii. 8, xi. 12); seven and its compounds\n(iii. 19, iv. 16, 23, ix. 24, etc.). The apocalyptic symbols of\nBears, Lions, Eagles, Horns, Wings, etc., abound in the contemporary\nand later Books of Enoch, Baruch, 4 Esdras, the Assumption of Moses,\nand the Sibyllines, as well as in the early Christian apocalypses,\nlike that of Peter. The authors of the Sibyllines (B.C. 140) were\nacquainted with Daniel; the Book of Enoch breathes exactly the same\nspirit with this Book, in the transcendentalism which avoids the name\nJehovah (vii. 13; Enoch xlvi. 1, xlvii. 3), in the number of angels\n(vii. 10; Enoch xl. 1, lx. 2), their names, the title of \"watchers\"\ngiven to them, and their guardianship of men (Enoch xx. 5). The\nJudgment and the Books (vii. 9, 10, xii. 1) occur again in Enoch\nxlvii. 3, lxxxi. 1, as in the Book of Jubilees, and the Testament of\nthe Twelve Patriarchs.[157]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[152] Among these critics are Delitzsch, Riehm, Ewald, Bunsen,\nHilgenfeld, Cornill, L\u00fccke, Strack, Sch\u00fcrer, Kuenen, Meinhold,\nOrelli, Jo\u00ebl, Reuss, K\u00f6nig, Kamphausen, Cheyne, Driver, Briggs,\nBevan, Behrmann, etc.\n\n[153] Renan, _History of Israel_, iv. 354. He adds, \"L'essence du\ngenre c'est le pseudonyme, ou si l'on veut l'apocryphisme\" (p. 356).\n\n[154] Lagarde, _Gott. Gel. Anzieg._, 1891, pp. 497-520, stands\nalmost, if not quite, alone in arguing that Dan. vii. was not written\ntill A.D. 69, and that the \"little horn\" is meant for Vespasian. The\nrelation of the fourth empire of Dan. vii. to the iron part of the\nimage in Dan. ii. refutes this view: both can only refer to the Greek\nEmpire. Josephus (_Antt._, X. xi. 7) does not refer to Dan. vii.;\nbut neither does he to ix.-xii., for reasons already mentioned. See\nCornill, _Einleit._, p. 262.\n\n[155] Stanley, _Life of Arnold_, p. 505.\n\n[156] Sch\u00fcrer, _Hist. of the Jew. People_, iii. 24 (E. Tr.).\n\n[157] On the close resemblance between Daniel and other apocryphal\nbooks see Behrmann, _Dan._, pp. 37-39; Dillmann, _Das Buch\nHenoch_. For its relation to the Book of Baruch see Schrader,\n_Keilinschriften_, 435 f. Philo does not allude to Daniel.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII\n\n                          _INTERNAL EVIDENCE_\n\n\nI. Other prophets start from the ground of the _present_, and to\nexigencies of the present their prophecies were primarily directed.\nIt is true that their lofty moral teaching, their rapt poetry, their\nimpassioned feeling, had its inestimable value for all ages. But\nthese elements scarcely exist in the Book of Daniel. Almost the whole\nof its prophecies bear on one short particular period _nearly four\nhundred years after_ the supposed epoch of their delivery. What,\nthen, is the phenomenon they present? Whereas other prophets, by\nstudying the problems of the present in the light flung upon them\nby the past, are enabled, by combining the present with the past,\nto gain, with the aid of God's Holy Spirit, a vivid glimpse of the\nimmediate future, for the instruction of the living generation, the\nreputed author of Daniel passes over the _immediate_ future with a\nfew words, and spends the main part of his revelations on a triad of\nyears separated by centuries from contemporary history. Occupied as\nthis description is with the wars and negotiations of empires which\nwere yet unborn, it can have had little practical significance for\nDaniel's fellow-exiles. Nor could these \"predictions\" have been to\nprove the possibility of supernatural foreknowledge,[158] since,\neven after their supposed fulfilment, the interpretation of them is\nopen to the greatest difficulties and the gravest doubts. If to a\nBabylonian exile was vouchsafed a gift of prevision so minute and so\nmarvellous as enabled him to describe the intermarriages of Ptolemies\nand Seleucid\u00e6 four centuries later, surely the gift must have been\ngranted for some decisive end. But these predictions are precisely\nthe ones which seem to have the smallest significance. We must say,\nwith Semler, that no such benefit seems likely to result from this\npredetermination of comparatively unimportant minuti\u00e6 as God must\nsurely intend when He makes use of means of a very extraordinary\ncharacter. It might perhaps be said that the Book was written,\nfour hundred years before the crisis occurred, to console the Jews\nunder their brief period of persecution by the Seleucid\u00e6. It would\nbe indeed extraordinary that so curious, distant, and roundabout\na method should have been adopted for an end which, in accordance\nwith the entire economy of God's dealings with men in revelation,\ncould have been so much more easily and so much more effectually\naccomplished in simpler ways. Further, unless we accept an isolated\nallusion to Daniel in the imaginary speech of the dying Mattathias,\nthere is no trace whatever that the Book had the smallest influence\nin inspiring the Jews in that terrible epoch. And the reference of\nMattathias, if it was ever made at all, may be to old tradition, and\ndoes not allude to the prophecies about Antiochus and his fate.\n\nBut, as Hengstenberg, the chief supporter of the authenticity of the\nBook of Daniel, well observes,[159] \"Prophecy can never entirely\nseparate itself from the ground of the present, _to influence which\nis always its more immediate object_, and to which therefore it must\nconstantly construct a bridge.[160] On this also rests all certainty of\nexposition as to the future. _And that the means should be provided for\nsuch a certainty_ is a necessary consequence of the Divine nature of\nprophecy. A truly Divine prophecy cannot possibly swim in the air; nor\ncan the Church be left to mere guesses in the exposition of Scripture\nwhich has been given to her as a light amid the darkness.\"\n\nII. And as it does not start from the ground of the present, so too\nthe Book of Daniel reverses the method of prophecy with reference to\nthe future.\n\nFor the genuine predictions of Scripture _advance_ by slow and gradual\ndegrees from the uncertain and the general to the definite and the\nspecial. Prophecy marches with history, and takes a step forward at\neach new period.[161] So far as we know there is not a single instance\nin which any prophet alludes to, much less dwells upon, any kingdom\nwhich had not then risen above the political horizon.[162]\n\nIn Daniel the case is reversed: the only kingdom which was looming\ninto sight is dismissed with a few words, and the kingdom most dwelt\nupon is the most distant and quite the most insignificant of all, of\nthe very existence of which neither Daniel nor his contemporaries had\neven remotely heard.[163]\n\nIII. Then again, although the prophets, with their divinely\nilluminated souls, reached far beyond intellectual sagacity and\npolitical foresight, yet their hints about the future never distantly\napproach to detailed history like that of Daniel. They do indeed so\nfar lift the veil of the Unseen as to shadow forth the outline of the\nnear future, but they do this only on general terms and on general\nprinciples.[164] Their object, as I have repeatedly observed, was\nmainly moral, and it was also confessedly conditional, even when no\nhint is given of the implied condition.[165] Nothing is more certain\nthan the wisdom and beneficence of that Divine provision which has\nhidden the future from men's eyes, and even taught us to regard all\nprying into its minute events as vulgar and sinful.[166] Stargazing\nand monthly prognostication were rather the characteristics of false\nreligion and unhallowed divinations than of faithful and holy souls.\nNitzsch[167] most justly lays it down as an essential condition of\nprophecy that it _should not disturb man's relation to history_.\nAnything like detailed description of the future would intolerably\nperplex and confuse our sense of human free-will. It would drive us to\nthe inevitable conclusion that men are but puppets moved irresponsibly\nby the hand of inevitable fate. Not one such prophecy, unless this be\none, occurs anywhere in the Bible. We do not think that (apart from\nMessianic prophecies) a single instance can be given in which any\nprophet distinctly and minutely predicts a future series of events of\nwhich the fulfilment was not _near_ at hand. In the few cases when\nsome event, already imminent, is predicted apparently with some detail,\nit is not certain whether some touches--names, for instance--may not\nhave been added by editors living subsequently to the occurrence of\nthe event.[168] That there has been at all times a gift of prescience,\nwhereby the Spirit of God, \"entering into holy souls, has made them\nsons of God and prophets,\" is indisputable. It is in virtue of this\nhigh foreknowledge[169] that the voice of the Hebrew Sibyl has\n\n            \"Rolled sounding onwards through a thousand years\n             Her deep prophetic bodiments.\"\n\nEven Demosthenes, by virtue of a statesman's thoughtful experience, can\ndescribe it as his office and duty \"to see events in their beginnings,\nto discern their purport and tendencies from the first, and to forewarn\nhis countrymen accordingly.\" Yet the power of Demosthenes was as\nnothing compared with that of an Isaiah or a Nahum; and we may safely\nsay that the writings alike of the Greek orator and the Hebrew prophets\nwould have been comparatively valueless had they merely contained\nanticipations of future history, instead of dealing with truths whose\nvalue is equal for all ages--truths and principles which give clearness\nto the past, security to the present, and guidance to the future. Had\nit been the function of prophecy to remove the veil of obscurity which\nGod in His wisdom has hung over the destinies of men and kingdoms, it\nwould never have attained, as it has done, to the love and reverence of\nmankind.\n\nIV. Another unique and abnormal feature is found in the close and\naccurate _chronological calculations_ in which the Book of Daniel\nabounds. We shall see later on that the dates of the Maccabean\nreconsecration of the Temple and the ruin of Antiochus Epiphanes are\nindicated _almost to the day_. The numbers of prophecy are in all\nother cases symbolical and general. They are intentional compounds\nof seven--the sum of three and four, which are the numbers that\nmystically shadow forth God and the world--a number which even\nCicero calls \"_rerum omnium fere modus_\"; and of ten, the number\nof the world.[170] If we except the prophecy of the seventy years'\ncaptivity--which was a round number, and is in no respect parallel\nto the periods of Daniel--there is no other instance in the Bible of\na _chronological_ prophecy. We say no other instance, because one of\nthe commentators who, in writing upon Daniel, objects to the remark\nof Nitzsch that the numbers of prophecy are mystical, yet observes\non the one thousand two hundred and sixty days of Rev. xii. that\nthe number one thousand two hundred and sixty, or three and a half\nyears, \"has _no_ historical signification whatever, and is only to be\nviewed in its relation to the number seven--viz., as symbolising the\napparent victory of the world over the Church.\"[171]\n\nV. Alike, then, in style, in matter, and in what has been called by\nV. Orelli its \"exoteric\" manner,--alike in its definiteness and its\nindefiniteness--in the point from which it starts and the period at\nwhich it terminates--in its minute details and its chronological\nindications--in the absence of the moral and the impassioned\nelement, and in the sense of fatalism which it must have introduced\ninto history had it been a genuine prophecy,--the Book of Daniel\ndiffers from all the other books which compose that prophetic canon.\nFrom that canon it was rightly and deliberately excluded by the Jews.\nIts worth and dignity can only be rationally vindicated or rightly\nunderstood by supposing it to have been the work of an unknown\nmoralist and patriot of the Maccabean age.\n\nAnd if anything further were wanting to complete the cogency of the\ninternal evidence which forces this conclusion upon us, it is amply\nfound in a study of those books, confessedly apocryphal, which,\nalthough far inferior to the Book before us, are yet of value, and\nwhich we believe to have emanated from the same era.\n\nThey resemble this Book in their language, both Hebrew and Aramaic,\nas well as in certain recurring expressions and forms to be found\nin the Books of Maccabees and the Second Book of Esdras;--in their\nstyle--rhetorical rather than poetical, stately rather than ecstatic,\ndiffuse rather than pointed, and wholly inferior to the prophets\nin depth and power;--in the use of an apocalyptic method, and the\nstrange combination of dreams and symbols;--in the insertion, by way\nof embellishment, of speeches and formal documents which can at the\nbest be only semi-historical;--finally, in the whole tone of thought,\nespecially in the quite peculiar doctrine of archangels, of angels\nguarding kingdoms, and of opposing evil spirits. In short, the Book\nof Daniel may be illustrated by the Apocryphal books in every single\nparticular. In the adoption of an illustrious name--which is the most\nmarked characteristic of this period--it resembles the _additions_\nto the Book of Daniel, the Books of Esdras, the Letters of Baruch\nand Jeremiah, and the Wisdom of Solomon. In the imaginary and\nquasi-legendary treatment of history it finds a parallel in Wisdom\nxvi.-xix., and parts of the Second Book of Maccabees and the Second\nBook of Esdras. As an allusive narrative bearing on contemporaneous\nevents under the guise of describing the past, it is closely parallel\nto the Book of Judith,[172] while the character of Daniel bears the\nsame relation to that of Joseph, as the representation of Judith\ndoes to that of Jael. As an ethical development of a few scattered\nhistorical data, tending to the marvellous and supernatural, but\nrising to the dignity of a very noble and important religious\nfiction, it is analogous, though incomparably superior, to Bel and\nthe Dragon, and to the stories of Tobit and Susanna.[173]\n\nThe conclusion is obvious; and it is equally obvious that, when we\nsuppose the name of Daniel to have been assumed, and the assumption\nto have been supported by an antique colouring, we do not for a\nmoment charge the unknown author--who may very well have been Onias\nIV.--with any dishonesty. Indeed, it appears to us that there are\nmany traces in the Book--\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fb6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd--which exonerate the\nwriter from any suspicion of _intentional_ deception. They may have\nbeen meant to remove any tendency to error in understanding the\nartistic guise which was adopted for the better and more forcible\ninculcation of the lessons to be conveyed. That the stories of Daniel\noffered peculiar opportunities for this treatment is shown by the\napocryphal additions to the Book; and that the practice was well\nunderstood even before the closing of the Canon is sufficiently\nshown by the Book of Ecclesiastes. The writer of that strange\nand fascinating book, with its alternating moods of cynicism and\nresignation, merely adopted the name of Solomon, and adopted it\nwith no dishonourable purpose; for he could not have dreamed that\nutterances which in page after page betray to criticism their late\norigin would really be identified with the words of the son of\nDavid a thousand years before Christ. This may now be regarded as\nan indisputable, and is indeed a no longer disputed, result of all\nliterary and philological inquiry.\n\nIt is to Porphyry, a Neoplatonist of the third century (born at Tyre,\nA.D. 233; died in Rome, A.D. 303), that we owe our ability to write a\ncontinuous historical commentary on the symbols of Daniel. That writer\ndevoted the twelfth book of his \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd to a proof that\nDaniel was not written till _after_ the epoch which it so minutely\ndescribed.[174] In order to do this he collected with great learning\nand industry a history of the obscure Antiochian epoch from authors\nmost of whom have perished. Of these authors Jerome--the most valuable\npart of whose commentary is derived from Porphyry--gives a formidable\nlist, mentioning among others Callinicus, Diodorus, Polybius,\nPosidonius, Claudius, Theo, and Andronicus. It is a strange fact that\nthe exposition of a canonical book should have been mainly rendered\npossible by an avowed opponent of Christianity. It was the object of\nPorphyry to prove that the apocalyptic portion of the Book was not a\nprophecy at all.[175] It used to be a constant taunt against those who\nadopt his critical conclusions that their weapons are borrowed from\nthe armoury of an infidel. The objection hardly seems worth answering.\n\"_Fas est et ab hoste doceri._\" If the enemies of our religion have\nsometimes helped us the better to understand our sacred books, or to\njudge more correctly respecting them, we should be grateful that their\nassaults have been overruled to our instruction. The reproach is wholly\nbeside the question. We may apply to it the manly words of Grotius:\n\"_Neque me pudeat consentire Porphyrio, quando is in veram sententiam\nincidit._\" Moreover, St. Jerome himself could not have written his\ncommentary, as he himself admits, without availing himself of the aid\nof the erudition of the heathen philosopher, whom no less a person than\nSt. Augustine called \"_doctissimus philosophorum_,\" though unhappily he\nwas \"_acerrimus christianorum inimicus_.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[158] Any apparently requisite modification of these words will be\nconsidered hereafter.\n\n[159] _On Revelations_, vol. i., p. 408 (E. Tr.).\n\n[160] \"Dient bei ihnen die Zukunft der Gegenwart, und ist selbst\nfortgesetzte _Gegenwart_\" (Behrmann, _Dan._, p. xi).\n\n[161] See M. de Pressens\u00e9, _Hist. des Trois Prem. Si\u00e8cles_, p. 283.\n\n[162] See some admirable remarks on this subject in Ewald, _Die\nProph. d. Alt. Bund._, i. 23, 24; Winer, _Realw\u00f6rterb._, _s.v._\n\"Propheten\" St\u00e4helin, _Einleit._, \u00a7 197.\n\n[163] Comp. Enoch i. 2.\n\n[164] Ewald, _Die Proph._, i. 27; Michel Nicolas, _\u00c9tudes sur la\nBible_, pp. 336 ff.\n\n[165] Comp. Mic. iii. 12; Jer. xxvi. 1-19; Ezek. i. 21. Comp. xxix.\n18, 19.\n\n[166] Deut. xviii. 10.\n\n[167] _System der christlichen Lehre_, p. 66.\n\n[168] _E.g._, in the case of Josiah (1 Kings xiii. 2).\n\n[169] _De Coron\u00e2_, 73: \u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[170] The symbolism of numbers is carefully and learnedly worked out\nin B\u00e4hr's _Symbolik_: cf. Auberlen, p. 133. The _several_ fulfilments\nof the prophesied seventy years' captivity illustrate this.\n\n[171] Hengstenberg, _On Revelations_, p. 609.\n\n[172] All these particulars may be found, without any allusion to the\nBook of Daniel, in the admirable article on the Apocrypha by Dean\nPlumptre in Dr. Smith's _Dict. of the Bible_.\n\n[173] Ewald, _Gesch. Isr._, iv. 541.\n\n[174] \"Et non tam Danielem _ventura dixisse_ quam illum _narrasse\npr\u00e6terita_\" (Jer.).\n\n[175] \"Ad intelligendas autem extremas Danielis partes multiplex\nGr\u00e6corum historia necessaria est\" (Jer., _Pro\u00e6m. Explan. in Dan.\nProph. ad f._). Among these Greek historians he mentions _eight_ whom\nPorphyry had consulted, and adds, \"Et si quando cogimur litterarum\ns\u00e6cularium recordari ... non nostr\u00e6 est voluntatis, sed ut dicam,\n_gravissim\u00e6 necessitatis_.\" We know Porphyry's arguments mainly\nthrough the commentary of Jerome, who, indeed, derived from Porphyry\nthe historic data without which the eleventh chapter, among others,\nwould have been wholly unintelligible.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII\n\n                 _EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE GENUINENESS\n                       UNCERTAIN AND INADEQUATE_\n\n\nWe have seen that there are many circumstances which force upon us\nthe gravest doubts as to the authenticity of the Book of Daniel. We\nnow proceed to examine the evidence urged in its favour, and deemed\nadequate to refute the conclusion that in its present form it did not\nsee the light before the time of Antiochus IV.\n\nTaking Hengstenberg as the most learned reasoner in favour of the\ngenuineness of Daniel, we will pass in review all the positive\narguments which he has adduced.[176] They occupy no less than one\nhundred and ten pages (pp. 182-291) of the English translation of his\nwork on the genuineness of Daniel. Most of them are tortuous specimens\nof special pleading inadequate in themselves, or refuted by increased\nknowledge derived from the monuments and from further inquiry. To these\narguments neither Dr. Pusey nor any subsequent writer has made any\nmaterial addition. Some of them have been already answered, and many of\nthem are so unsatisfactory that they may be dismissed at once.\n\nI. Such, for instance, are _the testimony of the author himself_. In\none of those slovenly treatises which only serve to throw dust in the\neyes of the ignorant we find it stated that, \"although the name of\nDaniel is not prefixed to his Book, the passages in which he speaks in\nthe first person _sufficiently prove_ that he was the author\"! Such\nassertions deserve no answer. If the mere assumption of a name be a\n_sufficient proof_ of the authorship of a book, we are rich indeed in\nJewish authors--and, not to speak of others, our list includes works by\nAdam, Enoch, Eldad, Medad, and Elijah. \"Pseudonymity,\" says Behrmann,\n\"was a very common characteristic of the literature of that day, and\nthe conception of literary property was alien to that epoch, and\nespecially to the circle of writings of this class.\"\n\nII. The character of the language, as we have seen already, proves\nnothing. Hebrew and Aramaic long continued in common use side by side\nat least among the learned,[177] and the divergence of the Aramaic\nin Daniel from that of the Targums leads to no definite result,\nconsidering the late and uncertain age of those writings.\n\nIII. How any argument can be founded on the exact knowledge of\nhistory displayed by local colouring we cannot understand. Were\nthe knowledge displayed ever so exact it would only prove that the\nauthor was a learned man, which is obvious already. But so far from\nany remarkable accuracy being shown by the author, it is, on the\ncontrary, all but impossible to reconcile many of his statements\nwith acknowledged facts. The elaborate and tortuous explanations,\nthe frequent \"subauditur,\" the numerous assumptions required to\nforce the text into accordance with the certain historic data of the\nBabylonian and Persian empires, tell far more against the Book than\nfor it. The methods of accounting for these inaccuracies are mostly\nself-confuting, for they leave the subject in hopeless confusion, and\neach orthodox commentator shows how untenable are the views of others.\n\nIV. Passing over other arguments of Keil, Hengstenberg, etc., which\nhave been either refuted already, or which are too weak to deserve\nrepetition, we proceed to examine one or two of a more serious\ncharacter. Great stress, for instance, is laid on the reception of the\nBook into the Canon. We acknowledge the canonicity of the Book, its\nhigh value when rightly apprehended, and its rightful acceptance as a\nsacred book; but this in nowise proves its authenticity. The history\nof the Old Testament Canon is involved in the deepest obscurity. The\nbelief that it was finally completed by Ezra and the Great Synagogue\nrests on no foundation; indeed, it is irreconcilable with later\nhistoric notices and other facts connected with the Books of Ezra,\nNehemiah, Esther, and the two Books of Chronicles. The Christian\nFathers in this, as in some other cases, implicitly believed what came\nto them from the most questionable sources, and was mixed up with mere\nJewish fables. One of the oldest Talmudic books, the _Pirke Aboth_, is\nentirely silent on the collection of the Old Testament, though in a\nvague way it connects the Great Synagogue with the preservation of the\nLaw. The earliest mention of the legend about Ezra is in the Second\nBook of Esdras (xiv. 29-48). This book does not possess the slightest\nclaim to authority, as it was not completed till a century after the\nChristian era; and it mingles up with this very narrative a number\nof particulars thoroughly fabulous and characteristic of a period\nwhen the Jewish writers were always ready to subordinate history to\nimaginative fables. The account of the magic cup, the forty days and\nforty nights' dictation, the ninety books of which seventy were secret\nand intended only for the learned, form part of the very passage from\nwhich we are asked to believe that Ezra established our existing Canon,\nthough the genuine Book of Ezra is wholly silent about his having\nperformed any such inestimable service. It adds nothing to the credit\nof this fable that it is echoed by Iren\u00e6us, Clemens Alexandrinus, and\nTertullian.[178] Nor are there any external considerations which render\nit probable. The Talmudic tradition in the _Baba Bathra_,[179] which\nsays (among other remarks in a passage of which \"the notorious errors\nprove the unreliability of its testimony\") that the men of the Great\nSynagogue _wrote_ the Books of Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets,\n_Daniel_, and Ezra.[180] It is evident that, so far as this evidence\nis worth anything, it rather goes _against_ the authenticity of Daniel\nthan for it. The _Pirke Aboth_ makes Simon the Just (about B.C. 290)\na member of this Great Synagogue, of which the very existence is\ndubious.[181]\n\nAgain, the author of the forged letter at the beginning of the Second\nBook of Maccabees--\"the work\" says Hengstenberg, \"of an arrant\nimpostor\"[182]--attributes the collection of certain books first to\nNehemiah, and then, when they had been lost, to Judas Maccab\u00e6us (2\nMacc. ii. 13, 14). The canonicity of the Old Testament books does not\nrest on such evidence as this,[183] and it is hardly worth while to\npursue it further. That the Book of Daniel was regarded as authentic\nby Josephus is clear; but this by no means decides its date or\nauthorship. It is one of the very few books of which Philo makes no\nmention whatever.\n\nV. Nor can the supposed traces of the early existence of the Book be\nconsidered adequate to prove its genuineness. With the most important\nof these, the story of Josephus (_Antt._, XI. viii. 5) that the high\npriest Jaddua showed to Alexander the Great the prophecies of Daniel\nrespecting himself, we shall deal later. The alleged traces of the Book\nin Ecclesiasticus are very uncertain, or rather wholly questionable;\nand the allusion to Daniel in 1 Macc. ii. 60 decides nothing, because\nthere is nothing to prove that the speech of the dying Mattathias is\nauthentic, and because we know nothing certain as to the date of the\nGreek translator of that book or of the Book of Daniel. The absence of\nall allusion to the _prophecies_ of Daniel is, on the other hand, a\nfar more cogent point against the authenticity. Whatever be the date\nof the Books of Maccabees, it is inconceivable that they should offer\nno vestige of proof that Judas and his brothers received any hope or\ncomfort from such explicit predictions as Dan. xi., had the Book been\nin the hands of those pious and noble chiefs.\n\nThe First Book of Maccabees cannot be certainly dated more than\na century before Christ, nor have we reason to believe that the\nSeptuagint version of the Book is much older.[184]\n\nVI. The badness of the Alexandrian version, and the apocryphal\nadditions to it, seem to be rather an argument for the late age and\nless established authority of the Book than for its genuineness.[185]\nNor can we attach much weight to the assertion (though it is endorsed\nby the high authority of Bishop Westcott) that \"it is far more\ndifficult to explain its composition in the Maccabean period than to\nmeet the peculiarities which it exhibits with the exigencies of the\nReturn.\" So far is this from being the case that, as we have seen\nalready, it resembles in almost every particular the acknowledged\nproductions of the age in which we believe it to have been written.\nMany of the statements made on this subject by those who defend the\nauthenticity cannot be maintained. Thus Hengstenberg[186] remarks that\n(1) \"at this time the Messianic hopes are dead,\" and (2) \"that no great\nliterary work appeared between the Restoration from the Captivity and\nthe time of Christ.\" Now the facts are _precisely the reverse in each\ninstance_. For (i) the little book called the Psalms of Solomon,[187]\nwhich belongs to this period, contains _the strongest and clearest\nMessianic hopes_, and the Book of Enoch most closely resembles Daniel\nin its Messianic predictions. Thus it speaks of the pre-existence of\nthe Messiah (xlviii. 6, lxii. 7), of His sitting on a throne of glory\n(lv. 4, lxi. 8), and receiving the power of rule.\n\n(ii) Still less can we attach any force to Hengstenberg's argument\nthat, in the Maccabean age, the gift of prophecy was believed to\nhave departed for ever. Indeed, that is an argument in favour of the\npseudonymity of the Book. For in the age at which--for purposes of\nliterary form--it is represented as having appeared the spirit of\nprophecy was far from being dead. Ezekiel was still living, or had\ndied but recently. Zechariah, Haggai, and long afterwards Malachi,\nwere still to continue the succession of the mighty prophets of their\nrace. Now, if prediction be an element in the prophet's work, no\nprophet, nor all the prophets together, ever distantly approached\nany such power of minutely foretelling the events of a distant\nfuture--even the half-meaningless and all-but-trivial events of four\ncenturies later, in kingdoms which had not yet thrown their distant\nshadows on the horizon--as that which Daniel must have possessed, if\nhe were indeed the author of this Book.[188] Yet, as we have seen, he\nnever thinks of claiming the functions of the prophets, or speaking\nin the prophet's commanding voice, as the foreteller of the message\nof God. On the contrary, he adopts the comparatively feebler and more\nentangled methods of the literary composers in an age when men saw\nnot their tokens and there was no prophet more.[189]\n\nWe must postpone a closer examination of the questions as to the\n\"four kingdoms\" intended by the writer, and of his curious and\nenigmatic chronological calculations; but we must reject at once the\nmonstrous assertion--excusable in the days of Sir Isaac Newton, but\nwhich has now become unwise and even portentous--that \"to reject\nDaniel's prophecies would be to undermine the Christian religion,\n_which is all but founded on his prophecies respecting Christ_\"!\nHappily the Christian religion is not built on such foundations of\nsand. Had it been so, it would long since have been swept away by\nthe beating rain and the rushing floods. Here, again, the arguments\nurged by those who believe in the authenticity of Daniel recoil with\ntenfold force upon themselves. Sir Isaac Newton's observations on the\nprophecies of Daniel only show how little transcendent genius in one\ndomain of inquiry can save a great thinker from absolute mistakes in\nanother. In writing upon prophecy the great astronomer was writing\non the assumption of baseless premisses which he had drawn from\nstereotyped tradition; and he was also writing at an epoch when the\nelements for the final solution of the problem had not as yet been\ndiscovered or elaborated. It is as certain that, had he been living\nnow, he would have accepted the conclusion of all the ablest and\nmost candid inquirers, as it is certain that Bacon, had he now been\nliving, would have accepted the Copernican theory. It is _absurdly_\nfalse to say that \"the Christian religion is all but founded on\nDaniel's prophecies respecting Christ.\" If it were not absurdly\nfalse, we might well ask, How it came that neither Christ nor His\nApostles ever once alluded to the existence of any such argument, or\never pointed to the Book of Daniel and the prophecy of the seventy\nweeks as containing the least germ of evidence in favour of Christ's\nmission or the Gospel teaching? No such argument is remotely alluded\nto till long afterwards by some of the Fathers.\n\nBut so far from finding any _agreement_ in the opinions of the\nChristian Fathers and commentators on a subject which, in Newton's\nview, was so momentous, we only find ourselves weltering in a chaos of\nuncertainties and contradictions. Thus Eusebius records the attempt of\nsome early Christian commentators to treat the _last_ of the seventy\nweeks as representing, not, like all the rest, seven years, but seventy\nyears, in order to bring down the prophecy to the days of Trajan!\nNeither Jewish nor Christian exegetes have ever been able to come to\nthe least agreement between themselves or with one another as to the\nbeginning or end--the _terminus a quo_ or the _terminus ad quem_--with\nreference to which the seventy weeks are to be reckoned. The Christians\nnaturally made great efforts to make the seventy weeks end with the\nCrucifixion. But Julius Africanus[190] (\u2020 A.D. 232), beginning with\nthe twentieth year of Artaxerxes (Neh. ii. 1-9, B.C. 444), gets only\nfour hundred and seventy-five to the Crucifixion, and to escape the\ndifficulty makes the years _lunar_ years.[191]\n\nHippolytus[192] separates the last week from all the rest, and\nrelegates it to the days of Antichrist and the end of the world.\nEusebius himself refers \"the anointed one\" to the line of Jewish\nhigh priests, separates the last week from the others, ends it with\nthe fourth year after the Crucifixion, and refers the ceasing of\nthe sacrifice (Deut. ix. 27) to the rejection of Jewish sacrifices\nby God after the death of Christ. Apollinaris makes the seventy\nweeks begin with the birth of Christ, and argues that Elijah and\nAntichrist were to appear A.D. 490! None of these views found\ngeneral acceptance.[193] Not one of them was sanctioned by Church\nauthority. Every one, as Jerome says, argued in this direction or\nthat _pro captu ingenii sui_. The climax of arbitrariness is reached\nby Keil--the last prominent defender of the so-called \"orthodoxy\" of\ncriticism--when he makes the weeks not such commonplace things as\n\"earthly chronological weeks,\" but Divine, symbolic, and therefore\nunknown and unascertainable periods. And are we to be told that it\nis on such fantastic, self-contradictory, and mutually refuting\ncalculations that \"the Christian religion is all but founded\"? Thank\nGod, the assertion is entirely wild.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[176] H\u00e4vernick is another able and sincere supporter; but Droysen\ntruly says (_Gesch. d. Hellenismus_, ii. 211), \"Die H\u00e4vernickschen\nAuffassung kann kein vernunftiger Mensch bestimmen.\"\n\n[177] See Grimm, _Comment., zum I. Buch der Makk., Einleit._,\nxvii.; M\u00f6vers in _Bonner Zeitschr._, Heft 13, pp. 31 ff.; St\u00e4helin,\n_Einleit._, p. 356.\n\n[178] Iren., _Adv. H\u00e6res._, iv. 25; Clem., _Strom._ i. 21, \u00a7 146;\nTert., _De Cult. F\u00e6m._, i. 3; Jerome, _Adv. Helv._, 7; Ps. August.,\n_De Mirab._, ii. 32, etc.\n\n[179] _Baba Bathra_, f. 13_b_, 14_b_.\n\n[180] See Oehler, _s.v._ \"Kanon\" (Herzog, _Encycl._).\n\n[181] Rau, _De Synag. Magna._, ii. 66.\n\n[182] _On Daniel_, p. 195.\n\n[183] \"Even after the Captivity,\" says Bishop Westcott, \"the history of\nthe Canon, like all Jewish history up to the date of the Maccabees, is\nwrapped in great obscurity. Faint traditions alone remain to interpret\nresults which are found realised when the darkness is first cleared\naway\" (_s.v._ \"Canon,\" Smith's _Dict. of Bible_).\n\n[184] See K\u00f6nig, _Einleit._, \u00a7 80, 2.\n\n[185] \"In propheta Daniele Septuaginta interpretes multum ab Hebraica\nveritate discordant\" (Jerome, _ed._ Vallarsi, v. 646). In the LXX. are\nfirst found the three apocryphal additions. For this reason the version\nof Theodotion was substituted for the LXX., which latter was only\nrediscovered in 1772 in a manuscript in the library of Cardinal Chigi.\n\n[186] _On the Authenticity of Daniel_, pp. 159, 290 (E. Tr.).\n\n[187] Psalms of Sol. xvii. 36, xviii. 8, etc. See Fabric., _Cod.\nPseudep._, i. 917-972; Ewald, _Gesch. d. Volkes Isr._, iv. 244.\n\n[188] Even Auberlen says (_Dan._, p. 3, E. Tr.), \"If prophecy is\nanywhere a history of the future, it is here.\"\n\n[189] See Vitringa, _De defectu Propheti\u00e6 post Malachi\u00e6 tempora Obss.\nSacr._, ii. 336.\n\n[190] _Demonstr. Evang._, viii.\n\n[191] Of the Jews, the LXX. translators seem to make the seventy\nweeks end with Antiochus Epiphanes; but in Jerome's day they made\nthe first year of \"Darius the Mede\" the _terminus a quo_, and\nbrought down the _terminus ad quem_ to Hadrian's destruction of the\nTemple. Saadia the Gaon and Rashi reckon the seventy weeks from\nNebuchadrezzar to Titus, and make Cyrus the anointed one of ix. 25.\nAbn Ezra, on the other hand, takes Nehemiah for \"the anointed one.\"\nWhat can be based on such varying and undemonstrable guesses? See\nBehrmann, _Dan._, p. xliii.\n\n[192] Hippolytus, _Fragm. in Dan._ (Migne, _Patr. Gr\u00e6c._, x.).\n\n[193] See Bevan, pp. 141-145.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IX\n\n                 _EXTERNAL EVIDENCE AND RECEPTION INTO\n                               THE CANON_\n\n\nThe reception of the Book of Daniel anywhere into the Canon might be\nregarded as an argument in favour of its authenticity, if the case\nof the Books of Jonah and Ecclesiastes did not sufficiently prove\nthat canonicity, while it does constitute a proof of the value and\nsacred significance of a book, has no weight as to its traditional\nauthorship. But in point of fact the position assigned by the Jews to\nthe Book of Daniel--not among the Prophets, where, had the Book been\ngenuine, it would have had a supreme right to stand, but only with\nthe Book of Esther, among the latest of the Hagiographa[194]--is a\nstrong argument for its late date. The division of the Old Testament\ninto Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa first occurs in the Prologue to\nEcclesiasticus (about B.C. 131)--\"the Law, the Prophecies, and the\nrest of the books.\"[195] In spite of its peculiarities, its prophetic\nclaims among those who accepted it as genuine were so strong that the\nLXX. and the later translations unhesitatingly reckon the author among\nthe four greater prophets. If the Daniel of the Captivity had written\nthis Book, he would have had a far greater claim to this position among\nthe prophets than Haggai, Malachi, or the later Zechariah. Yet the Jews\ndeliberately placed the Book among the _Kethub\u00eem_, to the writers of\nwhich they indeed ascribe the Holy Spirit (_Ruach Hakkodesh_), but whom\nthey did not credit with the higher degree of prophetic inspiration.\nJosephus expresses the Jewish conviction that, since the days of\nArtaxerxes onwards, the writings which had appeared had not been deemed\nworthy of the same reverence as those which had preceded them, because\nthere had occurred no unquestionable succession of prophets.[196] The\nJews who thus decided the true nature of the Book of Daniel must surely\nhave been guided by strong traditional, critical, historical, or other\ngrounds for denying (as they did) to the author the gift of prophecy.\nTheodoret denounces this as \"shameless impudence\" \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd on their\npart;[197] but may it not rather have been fuller knowledge or simple\nhonesty? At any rate, on any other grounds it would have been strange\nindeed of the Talmudists to decide that the most minutely predictive\nof the prophets--if indeed this _were_ a prophecy--wrote _without_ the\ngift of prophecy.[198] It can only have been the late and suspected\nappearance of the Book, and its marked phenomena, which led to its\nrelegation to the lowest place in the Jewish Canon. Already in 1\nMacc. iv. 46 we find that the stones of the demolished pagan altar are\nkept \"until there should arise a prophet to show what should be done\nwith them\"; and in 1 Macc. xiv. 41 we again meet the phrase \"until\nthere should arise a faithful prophet.\" Before this epoch there is no\ntrace of the existence of the Book of Daniel, and not only so, but the\nprophecies of the post-exilic prophets as to the future contemplate a\nwholly different horizon and a wholly different order of events. Had\nDaniel existed before the Maccabean epoch, it is impossible that the\nrank of the Book should have been deliberately ignored. The Jewish\nRabbis of the age in which it appeared saw, quite correctly, that it\nhad points of affinity with other pseudepigraphic apocalypses which\narose in the same epoch. The Hebrew scholar Dr. Joel has pointed out\nhow, amid its immeasurable superiority to such a poem as the enigmatic\nCassandra of the Alexandrian poet Lycophron,[199] it resembles that\nbook in its _indirectness_ of nomenclature. Lycophron is one of the\npleiad of poets in the days of Ptolemy Philadelphus; but his writings,\nlike the Book before us, have probably received interpolations from\nlater hands. He never calls a god or a hero by his name, but always\ndescribes him by a periphrasis, just as here we have \"the King of the\nNorth\" and \"the King of the South,\" though the name \"Egypt\" slips in\n(Dan. xi. 8). Thus Hercules is \"a three-nights' lion\" (\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd), and Alexander the Great is \"a wolf.\" A son is always \"an\noffshoot\" (\u03c6\u03af\u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1), or is designated by some other metaphor. When\nLycophron wants to allude to Rome, the Greek \u1fec\u03c9\u03bc\u03ae is used in its sense\nof \"strength.\" The name Ptolemaios becomes by anagram \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\n\"from honey\"; and the name Arsino\u00eb becomes \u1f34\u03bf\u03bd \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \"the violet of\nHera.\" We may find some resemblances to these procedures when we are\nconsidering the eleventh chapter of Daniel.\n\nIt is a serious abuse of argument to pretend, as is done by\nHengstenberg, by Dr. Pusey, and by many of their feebler followers,\nthat \"there are few books whose Divine authority is so fully\nestablished by the testimony of the New Testament, and in particular\nby our Lord Himself, as the Book of Daniel.\"[200] It is to the\nlast degree dangerous, irreverent, and unwise to stake the Divine\nauthority of our Lord on the maintenance of those ecclesiastical\ntraditions of which so many have been scattered to the winds for\never. Our Lord, on one occasion, in the discourse on the Mount\nof Olives, warned His disciples that, \"when they should see the\nabomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing\nin the holy place, they should flee from Jerusalem into the mountain\ndistrict.\"[201] There is nothing to prove that He Himself uttered\neither the words \"_let him that readeth understand_,\" or even\n\"_spoken of by Daniel the prophet_.\" Both of those may belong to\nthe explanatory narrative of the Evangelist, and the latter does\nnot occur in St. Mark. Further, in St. Luke (xxi. 20) there is _no_\nspecific allusion to Daniel at all; but instead of it we find,\n\"When ye see Jerusalem being encircled by armies, then know that\nits desolation is near.\" We cannot be certain that the specific\nreference to Daniel may not be due to the Evangelist. But without\nso much as raising these questions, it is fully admitted that,\nwhether exactly in its present form or not, the Book of Daniel formed\npart of the Canon in the days of Christ. If He directly refers to\nit as a book known to His hearers, His reference lies as wholly\noutside all questions of genuineness and authenticity as does St.\nJude's quotation from the Book of Enoch, or St. Paul's (possible)\nallusions to the Assumption of Elijah,[202] or Christ's own passing\nreference to the Book of Jonah. Those who attempt to drag in these\nallusions as decisive critical dicta transfer them to a sphere wholly\ndifferent from that of the moral application for which they were\nintended. They not only open vast and indistinct questions as to the\nself-imposed limitations of our Lord's human knowledge as part of His\nown voluntary \"emptying Himself of His glory,\" but they also do a\ndeadly disservice to the most essential cause of Christianity.[203]\nThe only thing which is acceptable to the God of truth is truth; and\nsince He has given us our reason and our conscience as lights which\nlight every man who is born into the world, we must walk by these\nlights in all questions which belong to these domains. History,\nliterature and criticism, and the interpretation of human language\ndo belong to the domain of pure reason; and we must not be bribed\nby the misapplication of hypothetical exegesis to give them up for\nthe support of traditional views which advancing knowledge no longer\nsuffers us to maintain. It may be true or not that our Lord adopted\nthe title \"Son of Man\" (_Bar Enosh_) from the Book of Daniel;\nbut even if He did, which is at least disputable, that would only\nshow, what we all already admit, that in His time the Book was an\nacknowledged part of the Canon. On the other hand, if our Lord and\nHis Apostles regarded the Book of Daniel as containing the most\nexplicit prophecies of Himself and of His kingdom, why did they never\nappeal or even allude to it to prove that He was the promised Messiah?\n\nAgain, Hengstenberg and his school try to prove that the Book of\nDaniel existed before the Maccabean age, because Josephus says that\nthe high priest Jaddua showed to Alexander the Great, in the year\nB.C. 332, the prophecy of himself as the Grecian he-goat in the Book\nof Daniel; and that the leniency which Alexander showed towards the\nJews was due to the favourable impression thus produced.[204]\n\nThe story, which is a beautiful and an interesting one, runs as\nfollows:--\n\nOn his way from Tyre, after capturing Gaza, Alexander decided to\nadvance to Jerusalem. The news threw Jaddua the high priest into an\nagony of alarm. He feared that the king was displeased with the Jews,\nand would inflict severe vengeance upon them. He ordered a general\nsupplication with sacrifices, and was encouraged by God in a dream to\ndecorate the city, throw open the gates, and go forth in procession\nat the head of priests and people to meet the dreaded conqueror. The\nprocession, so unlike that of any other nation, went forth as soon as\nthey heard that Alexander was approaching the city. They met the king\non the summit of Scopas, the watch-tower--the height of Mizpah, from\nwhich the first glimpse of the city is obtained. It is the famous\nBlanca Guarda of the Crusaders, on the summit of which Richard I.\nturned away, and did not deem himself worthy to glance at the city\nwhich he was too weak to rescue from the infidel. The Ph\u0153nicians and\nChaldeans in Alexander's army promised themselves that they would\nnow be permitted to plunder the city and torment the high priest\nto death. But it happened far otherwise. For when the king saw the\nwhite-robed procession approaching, headed by Jaddua in his purple\nand golden array, and wearing on his head the golden _petalon_, with\nits inscription \"Holiness to Jehovah,\" he advanced, saluted the\npriest, and adored the Divine Name. The Jews encircled and saluted\nhim with unanimous greeting, while the King of Syria and his other\nfollowers fancied that he must be distraught. \"How is it,\" asked\nParmenio, \"that you, whom all others adore, yourself adore the Jewish\nhigh priest?\" \"I did not adore the high priest,\" said Alexander, \"but\nGod, by whose priesthood He has been honoured. When I was at Dium in\nMacedonia, meditating on the conquest of Asia, I saw this very man in\nthis same apparel, who invited me to march boldly and without delay,\nand that he would conduct me to the conquest of the Persians.\" Then\nhe took Jaddua by the hand, and in the midst of the rejoicing priests\nentered Jerusalem, where he sacrificed to God.[205] Jaddua showed him\nthe prediction about himself in the Book of Daniel, and in extreme\nsatisfaction he granted to the Jews, at the high priest's request,\nall the petitions which they desired of him.\n\nBut this story, so grateful to Jewish vanity, is a transparent fiction.\nIt does not find the least support from any other historic source,\nand is evidently one of the Jewish _Haggadoth_ in which the intense\nnational self-exaltation of that strange nation delighted to depict\nthe homage which they, and their national religion, extorted from the\nsupernaturally caused dread of the greatest heathen potentates. In this\nrespect it resembles the earlier chapters of the Book of Daniel itself,\nand the numberless stories of the haughty superiority of great Rabbis\nto kings and emperors in which the Talmud delights. Roman Catholic\nhistorians, like Jahn and Hess, and older writers, like Prideaux,[206]\naccept the story, even when they reject the fable about Sanballat\nand the Temple on Gerizim which follows it. Stress is naturally laid\nupon it by apologists like Hengstenberg; but an historian like Grote\ndoes not vouchsafe to notice it by a single word, and most modern\nwriters reject it. The Bishop of Bath and Wells thinks that these\nstories are \"probably derived from some apocryphal book of Alexandrian\ngrowth, in which chronology and history gave way to romance and Jewish\nvanity.\"[207] All the historians except Josephus say that Alexander\nwent straight from Gaza to Egypt, and make no mention of Jerusalem or\nSamaria; and Alexander was by no means \"adored\" by all men at that\nperiod of his career, for he never received \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 till after his\nconquest of Persia. Nor can we account for the presence of \"Chaldeans\"\nin his army at this time, for Chaldea was then under the rule of\nBabylon. Besides which, Daniel was expressly bidden, as Bleek observes,\nto \"seal up his prophecy till the time of the end\"; and the \"time of\nthe end\" was certainly not the era of Alexander,--not to mention the\ncircumstance that Alexander, if the prophecies were pointed out to\nhim at all, would hardly have been content with the single verse or\ntwo about himself, and would have been anything but gratified by what\nimmediately follows.[208]\n\nI pass over as meaningless Hengstenberg's arguments in favour of the\ngenuineness of the Book from the predominance of symbolism; from the\nmoderation of tone towards Nebuchadrezzar; from the political gifts\nshown by the writer; and from his prediction that the Messianic Kingdom\nwould at once appear after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes! When\nwe are told that these circumstances \"can only be explained on the\nassumption of a Babylonian origin\"; that \"they are directly opposed\nto the spirit of the Maccabean time\"; that the artifice with which\nthe writing is pervaded, supposing it to be a pseudepigraphic book,\n\"far surpasses the powers of the most gifted poet\"; and that \"such a\ndistinct expectation of the near advent of the Messianic Kingdom is\nutterly without analogy in the whole of prophetic literature,\"--such\narguments can only be regarded as appeals to ignorance. They are\neither assertions which float in the air, or are disproved at once\nalike by the canonical prophets and by the apocryphal literature of\nthe Maccabean age. Symbolism is the distinguishing characteristic of\napocalypses, and is found in those of the late post-exilic period.\nThe views of the Jews about Nebuchadrezzar varied. Some writers were\npartially favourable to him, others were severe upon him. It does not\nin the least follow that a writer during the Antiochian persecution,\nwho freely adapted traditional or imaginative elements, should\nnecessarily represent the old potentates as irredeemably wicked, even\nif he meant to satirise Epiphanes in the story of their extravagances.\nIt was necessary for his purpose to bring out the better features of\ntheir characters, in order to show the conviction wrought in them by\nDivine interpositions. The notion that the Book of Daniel could only\nhave been written by a statesman or a consummate politician is mere\nfancy. And, lastly, in making the Messianic reign begin immediately at\nthe close of the Seleucid persecution, the writer both expresses his\nown faith and hope, and follows the exact analogy of Isaiah and all the\nother Messianic prophets.\n\nBut though it is common with the prophets to pass at once from the\nwarnings of destruction to the hopes of a Messianic Kingdom which is\nto arise immediately beyond the horizon which limits their vision,\nit is remarkable--and the consideration tells strongly against the\nauthenticity of Daniel--that not one of them had the least glimpse\nof the four successive kingdoms or of the four hundred and ninety\nyears;--not even those prophets _who, if the Book of Daniel were\ngenuine, must have had it in their hands_. To imagine that Daniel\ntook means to have his Book left undiscovered for some four hundred\nyears, and then brought to light during the Maccabean struggle, is\na grotesque impossibility. If the Book existed, it must have been\nknown. Yet not only is there no real trace of its existence before\nB.C. 167, but the post-exilic prophets pay no sort of regard to\nits detailed predictions, and were evidently unaware that any such\npredictions had ever been uttered. What room is there for Daniel's\nfour empires and four hundred and ninety years in such a prophecy\nas Zech. ii. 6-13? The pseudepigraphic Daniel possibly took the\nsymbolism of four horns from Zech. i. 18, 19; but there is not\nthe slightest connexion between Zechariah's symbol and that of\nthe pseudo-Daniel. If the number four in Zechariah be not a mere\nnumber of completeness with reference to the four quarters of the\nworld (comp. Zech. i. 18), the four horns symbolise either Assyria,\nBabylonia, Egypt, and Persia, or more generally the nations which\nhad then scattered Israel (Zech. ii. 8, vi. 1-8; Ezek. xxxvii. 9);\nso that the following promise does not even contemplate a victorious\nsuccession of heathen powers. Again, what room is there for Daniel's\nfour successive pagan empires in any natural interpretation of\nHaggai's \"yet a little while and I will shake all nations\" (Hag. ii.\n7), and in the promise that this shaking shall take place in the\nlifetime of Zerubbabel (Hag. ii. 20-23)? And can we suppose that\nMalachi wrote that the messenger of the Lord should \"suddenly\" come\nto His Temple with such prophecies as those of Daniel before him?[209]\n\nBut if it be thought extraordinary that a pseudepigraphic prophecy\nshould have been admitted into the Canon at all, even when placed low\namong the _Kethub\u00eem_, and if it be argued that the Jews would never\nhave conferred such an honour on such a composition, the answer is\nthat even when compared with such fine books as those of Wisdom and\nJesus the Son of Sirach, the Book has a right to such a place by its\nintrinsic superiority. Taken as a whole it is far superior in moral\nand spiritual instructiveness to any of the books of the Apocrypha.\nIt was profoundly adapted to meet the needs of the age in which it\noriginated. It was in its favour that it was written partly in Hebrew\nas well as in Aramaic, and it came before the Jewish Church under the\nsanction of a famous ancient name which was partly at least traditional\nand historical. There is nothing astonishing in the fact that in an\nage in which literature was rare and criticism unknown it soon came\nto be accepted as genuine. Similar phenomena are quite common in\nmuch later and more comparatively learned ages. One or two instances\nwill suffice. Few books have exercised a more powerful influence on\nChristian literature than the spurious letters of Ignatius and the\npseudo-Clementines. They were accepted, and their genuineness was\ndefended for centuries; yet in these days no sane critic would imperil\nhis reputation by an attempt to defend their genuineness. The book\nof the pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite was regarded as genuine and\nauthoritative down to the days of the Reformation, and the author\nprofesses to have seen the supernatural darkness of the Crucifixion;\nyet \"Dionysius the Areopagite\" did not write before A.D. 532! The power\nof the Papal usurpation was mainly built on the Forged Decretals,\nand for centuries no one ventured to question the genuineness and\nauthenticity of those gross forgeries, till Laurentius Valla exposed\nthe cheat and flung the tatters of the Decretals to the winds. In the\neighteenth century Ireland could deceive even the acutest critics\ninto the belief that his paltry Vortigern was a rediscovered play\nof Shakespeare; and a Cornish clergyman wrote a ballad which even\nMacaulay took for a genuine production of the reign of James II. Those\nwho read the Book of Daniel in the light of Seleucid and Ptolemaic\nhistory saw that the writer was well acquainted with the events of\nthose days, and that his words were full of hope, consolation, and\ninstruction. After a certain lapse of time they were in no position to\nestimate the many indications that by no possibility could the Book\nhave been written in the days of the Babylonian Exile; nor had it yet\nbecome manifest that all the detailed knowledge stops short with the\nclose of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. The enigmatical character\nof the Book, and the varying elements of its calculations, led later\ncommentators into the error that the fourth beast and the iron legs\nof the image stood for the Roman Empire, so that they did not expect\nthe Messianic reign at the close of the Greek Empire, which, in the\nprediction, it immediately succeeds.[210]\n\nHow late was the date before the Jewish Canon was finally settled we\nsee from the Talmudic stories that but for Hananiah ben-Hizkiah, with\nthe help of his three hundred bottles of oil burnt in nightly studies,\neven the Book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed, as being contrary\nto the Law (_Shabbath_, f. 13, 2); and that but for the mystic line of\ninterpretation adopted by Rabbi Aqiba (A.D. 120) a similar fate might\nhave befallen the Song of Songs (_Yaddayim_, c. iii.; _Mish._, 5).\n\nThere is, then, the strongest reason to adopt the conclusion that the\nBook of Daniel was the production of one of the _Chasid\u00eem_ towards\nthe beginning of the Maccabean struggle, and that its immediate\nobject was to warn the Jews against the apostasies of commencing\nHellenism. It was meant to encourage the faithful, who were waging\na fierce battle against Greek influences and against the mighty\nand persecuting heathen forces by which they were supported.[211]\nAlthough the writer's knowledge of history up to the time of\nAlexander the Great is vague and erroneous, and his knowledge of\nthe period which followed Antiochus entirely nebulous, on the other\nhand his acquaintance with the period of Antiochus Epiphanes is so\nextraordinarily precise as to furnish our chief information on some\npoints of that king's reign. Guided by these indications, it is\nperhaps possible to fix the exact year and month in which the Book\nsaw the light--namely, about January B.C. 164.[212]\n\nFrom Dan. viii. 14 it seems that the author had lived till the\ncleansing of the Temple after its pollution by the Seleucid King (1\nMacc. iv. 42-58). For though the Maccabean uprising is only called\n\"a little help\" (xi. 34), this is in comparison with the splendid\nfuture triumph and epiphany to which he looked forward. It is\nsufficiently clear from 1 Macc. v. 15, 16, that the Jews, even after\nthe early victories of Judas, were in evil case, and that the nominal\nadhesion of many Hellenising Jews to the national cause was merely\nhypocritical (Dan. xi. 34).\n\nNow the Temple was dedicated on December 25th, B.C. 165; and the\nBook appeared before the death of Antiochus, which the writer\nexpected to happen at the end of the seventy weeks, or, as he\ncalculated them, in June 164. The king did not actually die till the\nclose of 164 or the beginning of 163 (1 Macc. vi. 1-16).[213]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[194] Jacob Perez of Valentia accounted for this by the hatred of the\nJews for Christianity! (Diestel, _Gesch. d. A.T._, p. 211).\n\n[195] Comp. Luke xxiv. 44; Acts xxviii. 23; Philo, _De Vit. Cont._,\n3. See Oehler in Herzog, _s.v._ \"Kanon.\"\n\n[196] _Jos. c. Ap._, I. 8.\n\n[197] _Opp._ ed. Migne, ii. 1260: \u0395\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f24\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. He may well add,\non his view of the date, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1;\n\n[198] _Megilla_, 3, 1. Josephus, indeed, regards apocalyptic visions\nas the highest form of prophecy (_Antt._, X. xi. 7); but the great\nRabbis Kimchi, Maimonides, Joseph Albo, etc., are strongly against\nhim. See Behrmann, p. xxxix.\n\n[199] It has been described as \"ein Versteck f\u00fcr Belesenheit, und ein\ngrammatischer Monstrum.\"\n\n[200] Hengstenberg, p. 209.\n\n[201] Matt. xxiv. 15; Mark xiii. 14.\n\n[202] 1 Cor. ii. 9; Eph. v. 11.\n\n[203] Hengstenberg's reference to 1 Peter i. 10-12, 1 Thess. ii. 3, 1\nCor. vi. 2, Heb. xi. 12, deserve no further notice.\n\n[204] Jos., _Antt._, XI. viii. 5.\n\n[205] There is nothing to surprise us in this circumstance, for\nPtolemy III. (_Jos. c. Ap._, II. 5) and Antiochus VII. (Sidetes,\n_Antt._, XIII. viii. 2), Marcus Agrippa (_id._, XVI. ii. 1), and\nVitellius (_id._, XVIII. v. 3) are said to have done the same. Comp.\nSuet., _Aug._, 93; Tert., _Apolog._, 6; and other passages adduced by\nSch\u00fcrer, i., \u00a7 24.\n\n[206] Jahn, _Hebr. Commonwealth_, \u00a7 71; Hess, _Gesch._, ii. 37;\nPrideaux, _Connection_, i. 540 ff.\n\n[207] _Dict. of Bible_, _s.v._ \"Jaddua.\" See Sch\u00fcrer, i. 187; Van\nDale, _Dissert. de LXX. Interpr._, 68 ff.\n\n[208] This part of the story is a mere doublet of that about Cyrus\nand the prophecies of Isaiah (_Antt._, XI. i. 2).\n\n[209] Mal. iii. 1. LXX., \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03af\u03c6\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2; Vulg., _statim_; but it is rather\n\"unawares\" (_unversehens_).\n\n[210] That the fourth empire could not be the Roman has _long_ been\nseen by many critics, as far back as Grotius, L'Empereur, Chamier, J.\nVoss, Bodinus, Becmann, etc. (Diestel, _Gesch. A. T._, p. 523).\n\n[211] See Hamburger, _Real-Encycl._, _s.v._ \"Geheimlehre,\" ii. 265.\nThe \"Geheimlehre\" (Heb., _Sithr\u00ee Thorah_) embraces a whole region of\nJewish literature, of which the Book of Daniel forms the earliest\nbeginning. See Dan. xii. 4-9. The phrases of Dan. vii. 22 are common\nin the _Zohar_.\n\n[212] \"Pl\u00f6tzlich bei Antiochus IV. angekommen h\u00f6rt alle seine\nWissenschaft auf, so dass wir, den Kalendar in den Hand, _fast den\nTag angeben k\u00f6nnen_ wo dies oder jenes niedergeschrieben worden ist\"\n(Reuss, _Gesch. d. Heil. Schrift._, \u00a7 464).\n\n[213] For arguments in favour of this view see Cornill, _Theol. Stud.\naus Ostpreussen_, 1889, pp. 1-32, and _Einleit._, p. 261. He reckons\ntwelve generations, sixty-nine \"weeks,\" from the destruction of\nJerusalem to the murder of the high priest Onias III.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER X\n\n                        _SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION_\n\n\nThe contents of the previous sections may be briefly summarised.\n\nI. The objections to the authenticity and genuineness of Daniel do not\narise, as is falsely asserted, from any _a-priori_ objection to admit\nto the full the reality either of miracles or of genuine prediction.\nHundreds of critics who have long abandoned the attempt to maintain the\nearly date of Daniel believe both in miracles and prophecy.\n\nII. The grounds for regarding the Book as a pseudepigraph are many\nand striking. The very Book which would most stand in need of\noverwhelming evidence in its favour is the one which furnishes the\nmost decisive arguments against itself, and has the least external\ntestimony in its support.\n\nIII. The historical errors in which it abounds tell overwhelmingly\nagainst it. There was no deportation in the third year of Jehoiakim;\nthere was no King Belshazzar; the Belshazzar son of Nabunaid was not\na son of Nebuchadrezzar; the names Nebuchad_n_ezzar and Abed-nego are\nerroneous in form; there was no \"Darius the Mede\" who preceded Cyrus\nas king and conqueror of Babylon, though there was a later Darius,\nthe son of Hystaspes, who conquered Babylon; the demands and decrees\nof Nebuchadrezzar are unlike anything which we find in history, and\nshow every characteristic of the Jewish Haggada; and the notion that a\nfaithful Jew could become President of the Chaldean Magi is impossible.\nIt is not true that there were only two Babylonian kings--there were\nfive: nor were there only four Persian kings--there were twelve.\nXerxes seems to be confounded alike with Darius Hystaspis and Darius\nCodomannus as the last king of Persia. All correct accounts of the\nreign, even of Antiochus Epiphanes, seem to end about B.C. 164, and the\nindications in vii. 11-14, viii. 25, xi. 40-45, do not seem to accord\nwith the historic realities of the time indicated.\n\nIV. The philological peculiarities of the Book are no less unfavourable\nto its genuineness. The Hebrew is pronounced by the majority of\nexperts to be of a later character than the time assumed for it. The\nAramaic is not the Babylonian East-Aramaic, but the later Palestinian\nWest-Aramaic. The word _Kasd\u00eem_ is used for \"diviners,\" whereas at the\nperiod of the Exile it was a national name. Persian words and titles\noccur in the decrees attributed to Nebuchadrezzar. At least three Greek\nwords occur, of which one is certainly of late origin, and is known to\nhave been a favourite instrument with Antiochus Epiphanes.\n\nV. There are no traces of the existence of the Book before the second\ncentury B.C.,[214] although there are abundant traces of the other\nbooks--Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Second Isaiah--which belong to the period\nof the Exile. Even in Ecclesiasticus, while Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,\nand the twelve Minor Prophets are mentioned (Ecclus. xlviii. 20-25,\nxlix. 6-10), not a syllable is said about Daniel, and that although\nthe writer erroneously regards prophecy as mainly concerned with\n_prediction_. Jesus, son of Sirach, even goes out of his way to say\nthat no man like Joseph had risen since Joseph's time, though the story\nof Daniel repeatedly recalls that of Joseph, and though, if Dan. i.-vi.\nhad been authentic history, Daniel's work was far more marvellous and\ndecisive, and his faithfulness more striking and continuous, than that\nof Joseph. The earliest trace of the Book is in an imaginary speech of\na book written about B.C. 100 (1 Macc. ii. 59, 60).\n\nVI. The Book was admitted by the Jews into the Canon; but so far\nfrom being placed where, if genuine, it would have had a right to\nstand--among the four Great Prophets---it does not even receive\na place among the twelve Minor Prophets, such as is accorded to\nthe much shorter and far inferior Book of Jonah. It is relegated\nto the _Kethub\u00eem_, side by side with such a book as Esther. If it\noriginated during the Babylonian Exile, Josephus might well speak\nof its \"undeviating prophetic accuracy.\"[215] Yet this absolutely\nunparalleled and even unapproached foreteller of the minute future is\nnot allowed by the Jews any place at all in their prophetic Canon!\nIn the LXX. it is treated with remarkable freedom, and a number of\nother _Haggadoth_ are made a part of it. It resembles Old Testament\nliterature in very few respects, and all its peculiarities are such\nas abound in the later apocalypses and Apochrypha.[216] Philo, though\nhe quotes so frequently both from the Prophets and the Hagiographa,\ndoes not even allude to the Book of Daniel.\n\nVII. Its author seems to accept for himself the view of his age that\nthe spirit of genuine prophecy had departed for evermore.[217] He\nspeaks of himself as a student of the older prophecies, and alludes\nto the Scriptures as an authoritative Canon--_Hassephar\u00eem_, \"_the_\nbooks.\" His views and practices as regards three daily prayers\ntowards Jerusalem (vi. 11); the importance attached to Levitical\nrules about food (i. 8-21); the expiatory and other value attached\nto alms and fasting (iv. 24, ix. 3, x. 3); the angelology involving\neven the names, distinctions, and rival offices of angels; the form\ntaken by the Messianic hope; the twofold resurrection of good and\nevil,--are all in close accord with the standpoint of the second\ncentury before Christ as shown distinctly in its literature.[218]\n\nVIII. When we have been led by decisive arguments to admit the real\ndate of the Book of Daniel, its place among the Hagiographa confirms\nall our conclusions. The Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa\nrepresent, as Professor Sanday has pointed out, three layers or\nstages in the history of the collection of the Canon. If the Book\nof Chronicles was not accepted among the Histories (which were\ndesignated \"The Former Prophets\"), nor the Book of Daniel among the\nGreater or Lesser Prophets, the reason was that, at the date when the\nProphets were formally collected into a division of the Canon, these\nbooks were not yet in existence, or at any rate had not been accepted\non the same level with the other books.[219]\n\nIX. All these circumstances, and others which have been mentioned,\nhave come home to earnest, unprejudiced, and profoundly learned critics\nwith so irresistible a force, and the counter-arguments which are\nadduced are so little valid, that the defenders of the genuineness are\nnow an ever-dwindling body, and many of them can only support their\nbasis at all by the hypothesis of interpolations or twofold authorship.\nThus C. v. Orelli[220] can only accept a modified genuineness, for\nwhich he scarcely offers a single argument; but even he resorts to the\nhypothesis of a late editor in the Maccabean age who put together the\ntraditions and general prophecies of the real Daniel. He admits that\nwithout such a supposition--by which it does not seem that we gain\nmuch--the Book of Daniel is wholly exceptional, and without a single\nanalogy in the Old Testament. And he clearly sees that all the rays of\nthe Book are focussed in the struggle against Antiochus as in their\ncentral point,[221] and that the best commentary on the prophetic\nsection of the Book is the First Book of Maccabees.[222]\n\nX. It may then be said with confidence that the critical view has\nfinally won the day. The human mind will in the end accept that theory\nwhich covers the greatest number of facts, and harmonises best with\nthe sum-total of knowledge. Now, in regard to the Book of Daniel,\nthese conditions appear to be far better satisfied by the supposition\nthat the Book was written in the second century than in the sixth. The\nhistory, imperfect as to the pseudepigraphic date, but very precise\nas it approaches B.C. 176-164, the late characteristics which mark\nthe language, the notable silence respecting the Book from the sixth\nto the second century, and its subsequent prominence and the place\nwhich it occupies in the _Kethub\u00eem_, are arguments which few candid\nminds can resist. The critics of Germany, even the most moderate, such\nas Delitzsch, Cornill, Riehm, Strack, C. v. Orelli, Meinhold, are\nunanimous as to the late date of, at any rate, the prophetic section of\nthe Book; and even in the far more conservative criticism of England\nthere is no shadow of doubt on the subject left in the minds of such\nscholars as Driver, Cheyne, Sanday, Bevan, and Robertson Smith. Yet,\nso far from detracting from the value of the Book, we add to its real\nvalue and to its accurate apprehension when we regard it, not as the\nwork of a prophet in the Exile, but of some faithful _Chas\u00eed_ in\nthe days of the Seleucid tyrant, anxious to inspire the courage and\nconsole the sufferings of his countrymen. Thus considered, the Book\npresents some analogy to St. Augustine's _City of God_. It sets forth,\nin strong outlines, and with magnificent originality and faith, the\ncontrast between the kingdoms of this world and the kingdoms of our God\nand of His Christ, to which the eternal victory has been foreordained\nfrom the foundation of the world. In this respect we must compare it\nwith the Apocalypse. Antiochus Epiphanes was an anticipated Nero.\nAnd just as the agonies of the Neronian persecutions wrung from the\nimpassioned spirit of St. John the Divine those visions of glory and\nthat denunciation of doom, in order that the hearts of Christians in\nRome and Asia might be encouraged to the endurance of martyrdom, and to\nthe certain hope that the irresistible might of their weakness would\nultimately shake the world, so the folly and fury of Antiochus led the\nholy and gifted Jew who wrote the Book of Daniel to set forth a similar\nfaith, partly in _Haggadoth_, which may, to some extent, have been\ndrawn from tradition, and partly in prophecies, of which the central\nconception was that which all history teaches us--namely, that \"for\nevery false word and unrighteous deed, for cruelty and oppression, for\nlust and vanity, the price has to be paid at last, not always by the\nchief offenders, but paid by some one. Justice and truth alone endure\nand live. Injustice and oppression may be long-lived, but doomsday\ncomes to them at last.\"[223] And when that doom has been carried to its\nultimate issues, then begins the Kingdom of the Son of Man, the reign\nof God's Anointed, and the inheritance of the earth by the Saints of\nGod.\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[214] It is alluded to about B.C. 140 in the Sibylline Oracles (iii.\n391-416), and in 1 Macc. ii. 59, 60.\n\n[215] Jos., _Antt._, X. xi. 7.\n\n[216] Ewald (_Hist. of Israel_, v. 208) thinks that the author had\nread Baruch in Hebrew, because Dan. ix. 4-19 is an abbreviation of\nBaruch i. 15-ii. 17.\n\n[217] Psalm lxxiv. 9; 1 Macc. iv. 46, ix. 27, xiv. 41.\n\n[218] See Cornill, _Einleit._, pp. 257-260.\n\n[219] Sanday, _Inspiration_, p. 101. The name of \"Earlier Prophets\"\nwas given to the two Books of Samuel, of Kings, and of Isaiah,\nJeremiah, and Ezekiel; and the twelve Minor Prophets (the latter\nregarded as one book) were called \"The Later Prophets.\" Cornill\nplaces the collection of the Prophets into the Canon about B.C. 250.\n\n[220] _Alttestament. Weissagung_, pp. 513-530 (Vienna, 1882).\n\n[221] \"Alle strahlen des Buches sich in dieser Epoche als in ihrem\nBrennpunkte vereinigen\" (C. v. Orelli, p. 514).\n\n[222] Compare the following passages: Unclean meats, 1 Macc. i. 62-64,\n\"Many in Israel were fully resolved not to eat any unclean thing,\"\netc.; 2 Macc. vi. 18-31, vii. 1-42. The decrees of Nebuchadrezzar (Dan.\niii. 4-6) and Darius (Dan. vi. 6-9) with the proceedings of Antiochus\n(1 Macc. i. 47-51). Belshazzar's profane use of the Temple vessels\n(Dan. v. 2) with 1 Macc. i. 23; 2 Macc. v. 16, etc.\n\n[223] Froude, _Short Studies_, i. 17.\n\n\n\n                                PART II\n\n                  _COMMENTARY ON THE HISTORIC SECTION_\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n\n                             _THE PRELUDE_\n\n     \"His loyalty he kept, his faith, his love.\"--MILTON.\n\n\nThe first chapter of the Book of Daniel serves as a beautiful\nintroduction to the whole, and strikes the keynote of faithfulness to\nthe institutions of Judaism which of all others seemed most important\nto the mind of a pious Hebrew in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.\nAt a time when many were wavering, and many had lapsed into open\napostasy, the writer wished to set before his countrymen in the most\nwinning and vivid manner the nobleness and the reward of obeying God\nrather than man.\n\nHe had read in 2 Kings xxiv. 1, 2, that Jehoiakim had been a vassal\nof Nebuchadrezzar for three years, which were not, however, the\nfirst three years of his reign, and then had rebelled, and been\nsubdued by \"bands of the Chaldeans\" and their allies. In 2 Chron.\nxxxvi. 6 he read that Nebuchadrezzar had \"bound Jehoiakim in fetters\nto carry him to Babylon.\"[224] Combining these two passages, he\nseems to have inferred, in the absence of more accurate historical\nindications, that the Chaldeans had besieged and captured Jerusalem\nin the third year of Jehoiakim. That the date is erroneous there\ncan hardly be a question, for, as already stated,[225] neither\nJeremiah, the contemporary of Jehoiakim, nor the Book of Kings, nor\nany other authority, knows anything of any siege of Jerusalem by the\nBabylonian King in the third year of Jehoiakim. The Chronicler, a\nvery late writer, seems to have heard some tradition that Jehoiakim\nhad been taken captive, but he does not date this capture; and in\nJehoiakim's third year the king was a vassal, not of Babylon, but of\nEgypt. Nabopolassar, not Nebuchadrezzar, was then King of Babylon.\nIt was not till the following year (B.C. 605), when Nebuchadrezzar,\nacting as his father's general, had defeated Egypt at the Battle of\nCarchemish, that any siege of Jerusalem would have been possible.\nNor did Nebuchadrezzar advance against the Holy City even after the\nBattle of Carchemish, but dashed home across the desert to secure\nthe crown of Babylon on hearing the news of his father's death. The\nonly two considerable Babylonian deportations of which we know were\napparently in the eighth and nineteenth years of Nebuchadrezzar's\nreign. In the former Jehoiachin was carried captive with ten thousand\ncitizens (2 Kings xxiv. 14-16; Jer. xxvii. 20); in the latter\nZedekiah was slain, and eight hundred and thirty-two persons carried\nto Babylon (Jer. lii. 29; 2 Kings xxv. 11).[226]\n\nThere seems then to be, on the very threshold, every indication of\nan historic inaccuracy such as could not have been committed if the\nhistoric Daniel had been the true author of this Book; and we are\nable, with perfect clearness, to point to the passages by which\nthe Maccabean writer was misled into a mistaken inference.[227] To\nhim, however, as to all Jewish writers, a mere variation in a date\nwould have been regarded as a matter of the utmost insignificance.\nIt in no way concerned the high purpose which he had in view, or\nweakened the force of his moral fiction. Nor does it in the smallest\ndegree diminish from the instructiveness of the lessons which he has\nto teach to all men for all time. A fiction which is true to human\nexperience may be as rich in spiritual meaning as a literal history.\nDo we degrade the majesty of the Book of Daniel if we regard it as a\n_Haggada_ any more than we degrade the story of the Prodigal Son when\nwe describe it as a Parable?\n\nThe writer proceeds to tell us that, after the siege,\nNebuchadrezzar--whom the historic Daniel could never have called\nby the erroneous name Nebuchad_n_ezzar--took Jehoiakim (for this\nseems to be implied), with some of the sacred vessels of the Temple\n(comp. v. 2, 3), into the land of Shinar,[228] \"to the house of his\ngod.\" This god, as we learn from Babylonian inscriptions, was Bel or\nBel-merodach, in whose temple, built by Nebuchadrezzar, was also \"the\ntreasure-house of his kingdom.\"[229]\n\nAmong the captives were certain \"of the king's seed, and of the\nprinces\" (_Parthem\u00eem_).[230] They were chosen from among such boys as\nwere pre-eminent for their beauty and intelligence, and the intention\nwas to train them as pages in the royal service, and also in such a\nknowledge of the Chaldean language and literature as should enable\nthem to take their places in the learned caste of priestly diviners.\nTheir home was in the vast palace of the Babylonian King, of which\nthe ruins are now called Kasr. Here they may have seen the hapless\nJehoiachin still languishing in his long captivity.\n\nThey are called \"children,\" and the word, together with the context,\nseems to imply that they were boys of the age of from twelve to\nfourteen. The king personally handed them over to the care of\nAshpenaz,[231] the Rabsaris, or \"master of the eunuchs,\" who held\nthe position of lord high chamberlain.[232] It is probably implied\nthat the boys were themselves made eunuchs, for the incident seems\nto be based on the rebuke given by Isaiah to the vain ostentation\nof Hezekiah in showing the treasures of his temple and palace to\nMerodach-baladan: \"Behold the days come, that all that is in thine\nhouse ... shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith\nthe Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou\nshalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the\npalace of the King of Babylon.\"[233]\n\nThey were to be trained in the learning (lit. \"the book\") and\nlanguage of Chaldea for three years; at the end of which period they\nwere to be admitted into the king's presence, that he might see how\nthey looked and what progress they had made. During those three years\nhe provided them with a daily maintenance of food and wine from his\ntable. Those who were thus maintained in Eastern courts were to be\ncounted by hundreds, and even by thousands, and their position was\noften supremely wretched and degraded, as it still is in such Eastern\ncourts. The wine was probably imported. The food consisted of meat,\ngame, fish, joints, and wheaten bread. The word used for \"provision\"\nis interesting. It is _path-bag_, and seems to be a transliteration,\nor echo of a Persian word, _patibaga_ (Greek \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b2\u03b1\u03b6\u03b9\u03c2), a name\napplied by the historian Deinon (B.C. 340) to barley bread and \"mixed\nwine in a golden egg from which the king drinks.\"[234]\n\nBut among these captives were four young Jews named Daniel, Hananiah,\nMishael, and Azariah.\n\nTheir very names were a witness not only to their nationality, but to\ntheir religion. Daniel means \"God is my judge\"; Hananiah, \"Jehovah is\ngracious\"; Mishael (perhaps), \"who is equal to God?\"[235] Azariah,\n\"God is a helper.\"\n\nIt is hardly likely that the Chaldeans would have tolerated the\nuse of such names among their young pupils, since every repetition\nof them would have sounded like a challenge to the supremacy of\nBel, Merodach, and Nebo. It was a common thing to change names in\nheathen courts, as the name of Joseph had been changed by the\nEgyptians to Zaphnathpaaneah (Gen. xli. 45), and the Assyrians\nchanged the name of Psammetichus II. into _Nebo-serib-ani_, \"Nebo\nsave me.\" They therefore made the names of the boys echo the names\nof the Babylonian deities. Instead of \"God is my judge,\" Daniel\nwas called Belteshazzar, \"protect Thou his life.\"[236] Perhaps the\nprayer shows the tender regard in which he was held by Ashpenaz.\nHananiah was called Shadrach, perhaps Shudur-aku, \"command of Aku,\"\nthe moon-deity; Mishael was called Meshach, a name which we cannot\ninterpret;[237] and Azariah, instead of \"God is a help,\" was called\nAbed-nego, a mistaken form for Abed-nebo, or \"servant of Nebo.\"[238]\nEven in this slight incident there may be an allusion to Maccabean\ndays. It appears that in that epoch the apostate Hellenising Jews\nwere fond of changing their names into Gentile names, which had a\nsomewhat similar sound. Thus Joshua was called \"Jason,\" and Onias\n\"Menelaus.\"[239] This was done as part of the plan of Antiochus to\nforce upon Palestine the Greek language. So far the writer may have\nthought the practice a harmless one, even though imposed by heathen\npotentates. Such certainly was the view of the later Jews, even of\nthe strictest sect of the Pharisees. Not only did Saul freely adopt\nthe name of Paul, but Silas felt no scruple in being called by the\nname Sylvanus, though that was the name of a heathen deity.\n\nIt was far otherwise with acquiescence in the eating of heathen\nmeats, which, in the days of the Maccabees, was forced upon many\nof the Jews, and which, since the institution or reinstitution of\nLevitism after the return from the Exile, had come to be regarded as\na deadly sin. It was during the Exile that such feelings had acquired\nfresh intensity. At first they do not seem to have prevailed.\nJehoiachin was a hero among the Jews. They remembered him with\nintense love and pity, and it does not seem to have been regarded as\nany stain upon his memory that, for years together, he had, almost in\nthe words of Dan. i. 5, received a daily allowance from the table of\nthe King of Babylon.[240]\n\nIn the days of Antiochus Epiphanes the ordinary feeling on this subject\nwas very different, for the religion and nationality of the Jews were\nat stake. Hence we read: \"Howbeit many in Israel were fully resolved\nand confirmed in themselves not to eat any unclean thing. Wherefore\nthey chose rather to die, that they might not be defiled with meats,\nthat they might not profane the holy covenant: so then they died.\"[241]\n\nAnd in the Second Book of Maccabees we are told that on the king's\nbirthday Jews \"were constrained by bitter constraint to eat of the\nsacrifices,\" and that Eleazar, one of the principal scribes, an aged\nand noble-looking man, preferred rather to be tortured to death,\n\"leaving his death for an example of noble courage, and a memorial\nof value, not only unto young men, but unto all his nation.\"[242] In\nthe following chapter is the celebrated story of the constancy and\ncruel death of seven brethren and their mother, when they preferred\nmartyrdom to tasting swine's flesh. The brave Judas Maccab\u00e6us, with\nsome nine companions, withdrew himself into the wilderness, and\n\"lived in the mountains after the manner of beasts with his company,\nwho fed on herbs continually, lest they should be partakers of the\npollution.\" The tone and object of these narratives are precisely the\nsame as the tone and object of the stories in the Book of Daniel; and\nwe can well imagine how the heroism of resistance would be encouraged\nin every Jew who read those narratives or traditions of former days\nof persecution and difficulty. \"This Book,\" says Ewald, \"fell like a\nglowing spark from a clear heaven upon a surface which was already\nintensely heated far and wide, and waiting to burst into flames.\"[243]\n\nIt may be doubtful whether such views as to ceremonial defilement were\nalready developed at the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity.[244]\nThe Maccabean persecution left them ingrained in the habits of the\npeople, and Josephus tells us a contemporary story which reminds us\nof that of Daniel and his companions. He says that certain priests,\nwho were friends of his own, had been imprisoned in Rome, and that\nhe endeavoured to procure their release, \"especially because I was\ninformed that they were not unmindful of piety towards God, but\nsupported themselves with figs and nuts,\" because in such eating of\ndry food (\u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, as it was called) there was no chance of heathen\ndefilement.[245] It need hardly be added that when the time came to\nbreak down the partition-wall which separated Jewish particularism\nfrom the universal brotherhood of mankind redeemed in Christ, the\nApostles--especially St. Paul--had to show the meaningless nature of\nmany distinctions to which the Jews attached consummate importance.\nThe Talmud abounds in stories intended to glorify the resoluteness\nwith which the Jews maintained their stereotyped Levitism; but Christ\ntaught, to the astonishment of the Pharisees and even of the disciples,\nthat it is not what entereth into a man which makes him unclean, but\nthe unclean thoughts which come from within, from the heart.[246] And\nthis He said, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1--_i.e._, abolishing thereby\nthe Levitic Law, and \"making all meats clean.\" Yet, even after this, it\nrequired nothing less than that Divine vision on the tanner's roof at\nJoppa to convince Peter that he was not to call \"common\" what God had\ncleansed,[247] and it required all the keen insight and fearless energy\nof St. Paul to prevent the Jews from keeping an intolerable yoke upon\ntheir own necks, and also laying it upon the necks of the Gentiles.[248]\n\nThe four princely boys--they may have been from twelve to fourteen\nyears old[249]--determined not to share in the royal dainties, and\nbegged the Sar-hassar\u00ees\u00eem to allow them to live on pulse and water,\nrather than on the luxuries in which--for them--lurked a heathen\npollution. The eunuch not unnaturally demurred. The daily rations were\nprovided from the royal table. He was responsible to the king for the\nbeauty and health, as well as for the training, of his young scholars;\nand if Nebuchadrezzar saw them looking more meagre or haggard[250] than\nthe rest of the captives and other pages, the chamberlain's head might\npay the forfeit.[251] But Daniel, like Joseph in Egypt, had inspired\naffection among his captors; and since the prince of the eunuchs\nregarded him \"with favour and tender love,\" he was the more willing to\ngrant, or at least to connive at, the fulfilment of the boy's wish. So\nDaniel gained over the Melzar (or steward?),[252] who was in immediate\ncharge of the boys, and begged him to try the experiment for ten days.\nIf at the end of that time their health or beauty had suffered, the\nquestion might be reconsidered.\n\nSo for ten days the four faithful children were fed on water, and on\nthe \"seeds\"--_i.e._, vegetables, dates, raisins, and other fruits,\nwhich are here generally called \"pulse.\"[253] At the end of the ten\ndays--a sort of mystic Persian week[254]--they were found to be\nfairer and fresher than all the other captives of the palace.[255]\nThenceforth they were allowed without hindrance to keep the customs\nof their country.\n\nNor was this all. During the three probationary years they continued\nto flourish intellectually as well as physically. They attained to\nconspicuous excellence \"in all kinds of books and wisdom,\" and Daniel\nalso had understanding in all kinds of dreams and visions, to which\nthe Chaldeans attached supreme importance.[256] The Jews exulted in\nthese pictures of four youths of their own race who, though they\nwere strangers in a strange land, excelled all their alien compeers\nin their own chosen fields of learning. There were already two such\npictures in Jewish history,--that of the youthful Moses, learned in\nall the wisdom of the Egyptians, and a great man and a prince among\nthe magicians of Pharaoh; and that of Joseph, who, though there were\nso many Egyptian diviners, alone could interpret dreams, whether in\nthe dungeon or at the foot of the throne. A third picture, that of\nDaniel at the court of Babylon, is now added to them, and in all\nthree cases the glory is given directly, not to them, but to the God\nof heaven, the God of their fathers.\n\nAt the close of the three years the prince of the eunuchs brought\nall his young pages into the presence of the King Nebuchadrezzar.\nHe tested them by familiar conversation,[257] and found the four\nJewish lads superior to all the rest. They were therefore chosen\n\"to stand before the king\"--in other words, to become his personal\nattendants. As this gave free access to his presence, it involved a\nposition not only of high honour, but of great influence. And their\nsuperiority stood the test of time. Whenever the king consulted them\non matters which required \"wisdom of understanding,\" he found them\nnot only better, but \"ten times better,\" than all the \"magicians\" and\n\"astrologers\" that were in all his realm.[258]\n\nThe last verse of the chapter, \"And Daniel continued even unto the\nfirst year of King Cyrus,\" is perhaps a later gloss, for it appears\nfrom x. 1 that Daniel lived, at any rate, till the _third_ year of\nCyrus. Abn Ezra adds the words \"continued in _Babylon_,\" and Ewald\n\"at the king's court.\" Some interpret \"continued\" to mean \"remained\nalive.\" The reason for mentioning \"the first year of Cyrus\" may be to\nshow that Daniel survived the return from the Exile,[259] and also\nto mark the fact that he attained a great age. For if he were about\nfourteen at the beginning of the narrative, he would be eighty-five\nin the first year of Cyrus. Dr. Pusey remarks: \"Simple words, but\nwhat a volume of tried faithfulness is unrolled by them! Amid all the\nintrigues indigenous at all times in dynasties of Oriental despotism,\namid all the envy towards a foreign captive in high office as a\nking's councillor, amid all the trouble incidental to the insanity\nof the king and the murder of two of his successors, in that whole\ncritical period for his people, Daniel _continued_.\"[260]\n\nThe domestic anecdote of this chapter, like the other more splendid\nnarratives which succeed it, has a value far beyond the circumstances\nin which it may have originated. It is a beautiful moral illustration\nof the blessings which attend on faithfulness and on temperance,\nand whether it be an _Haggada_ or an historic tradition, it equally\nenshrines the same noble lesson as that which was taught to all time\nby the early stories of the Books of Genesis and Exodus.[261]\n\nIt teaches the crown and blessing of faithfulness. It was the\nhighest glory of Israel \"to uplift among the nations the banner of\nrighteousness.\" It matters not that, in this particular instance,\nthe Jewish boys were contending for a mere ceremonial rule which in\nitself was immaterial, or at any rate of no eternal significance.\nSuffice it that this rule presented itself to them in the guise of\na _principle_ and of a sacred duty, exactly as it did to Eleazar\nthe Scribe, and Judas the Maccabee, and the Mother and her seven\nstrong sons in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. They regarded it as\na duty to their laws, to their country, to their God; and therefore\nupon them it was sacredly incumbent. And they were faithful to\nit. Among the pampered minions and menials of the vast Babylonian\npalace--undazzled by the glitter of earthly magnificence, untempted\nby the allurements of pomp, pleasure, and sensuous indulgence--\n\n            \"Amid innumerable false, unmoved,\n             Unshaken, unseduced, unterrified,\n             Their loyalty they kept, their faith, their love.\"\n\nAnd because God loves them for their constancy, because they remain\npure and true, all the Babylonian varletry around them learns the\nlesson of simplicity, the beauty of holiness. Amid the outpourings\nof the Divine favour they flourish, and are advanced to the highest\nhonours. This is one great lesson which dominates the historic\nsection of this Book: \"Them that honour Me I will honour, and they\nthat despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.\" It is the lesson of\nJoseph's superiority to the glamour of temptation in the house of\nPotiphar; of the choice of Moses, preferring to suffer affliction\nwith the people of God rather than all the treasures of Egypt and\n\"to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter\"; of Samuel's stainless\ninnocence beside the corrupting example of Eli's sons; of David's\nstrong, pure, ruddy boyhood as a shepherd-lad on Bethlehem's hills.\nIt is the anticipated story of that yet holier childhood of Him\nwho--subject to His parents in the sweet vale of Nazareth--blossomed\n\"like the flower of roses in the spring of the year, and as lilies by\nthe water-courses.\" The young human being who grows up in innocence\nand self-control grows up also in grace and beauty, in wisdom and\n\"in favour with God and man.\" The Jews specially delighted in these\npictures of boyish continence and piety, and they lay at the basis of\nall that was greatest in their national character.\n\nBut there also lay incidentally in the story a warning against\ncorrupting luxury, the lesson of the need for, and the healthfulness of,\n\n            \"The rule of not too much by temperance taught.\"\n\n\"The love of sumptuous food and delicious drinks is never good,\" says\nEwald, \"and with the use of the most temperate diet body and soul can\nflourish most admirably, as experience had at that time sufficiently\ntaught.\"\n\nTo the value of this lesson the Nazarites among the Jews were a\nperpetual witness. Jeremiah seems to single them out for the special\nbeauty which resulted from their youthful abstinence when he writes\nof Jerusalem, \"Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter\nthan milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing\nwas of sapphires.\"[262]\n\nIt is the lesson which Milton reads in the story of Samson,--\n\n            \"O madness! to think use of strongest wines\n             And strongest drinks our chief support of health,\n             When God, with these forbidden, made choice to rear\n             His mighty champion, strong above compare,\n             Whose drink was only from the liquid brook!\"\n\nIt is the lesson which Shakespeare inculcates when he makes the old\nman say in _As You Like It_,--\n\n            \"When I was young I never did apply\n             Hot and rebellious liquors in my blood,\n             Nor did not with unblushful forehead woo\n             The means of weakness and debility;\n             Therefore mine age is as a lusty winter,\n             Frosty, yet kindly.\"\n\nThe writer of this Book connects intellectual advance as well as\nphysical strength with this abstinence, and here he is supported even\nby ancient and pagan experience. Something of this kind may perhaps\nlurk in the \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 of Pindar; and certainly Horace saw that\ngluttony and repletion are foes to insight when he wrote,--\n\n                                \"Nam corpus onustum\n            Hesternis vitiis animum quoque pr\u00e6gravat una,\n            Atque affigit humo divin\u00e6 particulam aur\u00e6.\"[263]\n\nPythagoras was not the only ancient philosopher who recommended and\npractised a vegetable diet, and even Epicurus, whom so many regard as\n\n            \"The soft garden's rose-encircled child,\"\n\nplaced over his garden door the inscription that those who came\nwould only be regaled on barley-cakes and fresh water, to satisfy,\nbut not to allure, the appetite.\n\nBut the grand lesson of the picture is meant to be that the fair\nJewish boys were kept safe in the midst of every temptation to\nself-indulgence, because they lived as in God's sight: and \"he that\nholds himself in reverence and due esteem for the dignity of God's\nimage upon him, accounts himself both a fit person to do the noblest\nand godliest deeds, and much better worth than to deject and defile,\nwith such debasement and pollution as Sin is, himself so highly\nransomed and ennobled to a new friendship and filial relation with\nGod.\"[264]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[224] Comp. Jer. xxii. 18, 19, xxxvi. 30.\n\n[225] See _supra_, p. 45.\n\n[226] Jeremiah (lii. 28-30) mentions _three_ deportations, in the\nseventh, eighteenth, and twenty-third year of Nebuchadrezzar; but\nthere are great difficulties about the historic verification, and the\nparagraph (which is of doubtful genuineness) is omitted by the LXX.\n\n[227] The manner in which the maintainers of the genuineness get\nover this difficulty is surely an instance of such special pleading\nas can convince no unbiassed inquirer. They conjecture (1) that\nNebuchadrezzar had been associated with his father, and received the\ntitle of king before he really became king; (2) that by \"_came to_\nJerusalem and besieged it\" is meant \"_set out towards_ Jerusalem, so\nthat (ultimately) he besieged it\"; (3) and that a vague and undated\nallusion in the Book of Chronicles, and a vague, unsupported, and\nevidently erroneous assertion in Berossus--quoted by Josephus,\n_Antt._, X. xi. 1; _c. Ap._, I. 19, who lived some two and a half\ncenturies after these events, and who does not mention any siege of\nJerusalem--can be so interpreted as to outweigh the fact that neither\ncontemporary histories nor contemporary records know anything of this\nsupposed deportation. Jeremiah (xxv. 1) says correctly that \"the\n_fourth_ year of Jehoiakim\" was \"the first year of Nebuchadrezzar\";\nand had Jerusalem been already captured and plundered, it is\nimpossible that he should not have alluded to the fact in that\nchapter. An older subterfuge for \"explaining\" the error is that of\nSaadia the Gaon, Abn Ezra, Rashi, etc., who interpret \"the third year\nof Jehoiakim\" to mean \"_the third year after his rebellion_ from\nNebuchadrezzar,\" which is not only impossible in itself, but also\ncontradicts Dan. ii. 1.\n\n[228] Shinar is an archaism, supposed by Schrader to be a corruption\nof Sumir, or Northern Chaldea (_Keilinschr._, p. 34); but see Hommel,\n_Gesch. Bab. u. Assyr._, 220; F. Delitzsch, _Assyr. Gram._, 115. The\nmore common name in the exilic period was Babel (Jer. li. 9, etc.) or\nEretz Kasdim (Ezek. xii. 13).\n\n[229] On this god--Marduk or Maruduk (Jer. l. 2)--comp. 2 Chron.\nxxxvi. 7. See Schrader, _K. A. T._, pp. 273, 276; and Riehm,\n_Handw\u00f6rterb._, ii. 982.\n\n[230] This seems to be a Persian word, _fratama_, \"first.\" It is only\nfound in Esther. Josephus says that the four boys were connected with\nZedekiah (_Antt._, X. x. 1). Comp. Jer. xli. 1.\n\n[231] Dan. i. 3; LXX., \u1f08\u03b2\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03b4\u03c1\u03af. The name is of quite uncertain\nderivation. Lenormant connects it with Abai-Istar, \"astronomer of the\ngoddess Istar\" (_La Divination_, p. 182). Hitzig sees in this strange\nrendering Abiesdri the meaning \"eunuch.\" A eunuch could have no son\nto help him, so that his father is his help (_'ezer_). Ephr\u00e6m Syrus,\nin his Commentary, preserves both names (Schleusner, _Thesaurus_,\n_s.v._ \u1f08\u03b2\u03b9\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c1). We find the name Ash_k_enaz in Gen. x. 3. Theodot.\nhas \u1f08\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03b6. Among other guesses Lenormant makes Ashpenaz =\nAssa-ibni-zir. Dr. Joel (_Notizen zum Buche Daniel_, p. 17) says that\nsince the Vulgate reads Ab_r_iesri, \"ob nicht der Wort von rechts zu\nlinks gelesen m\u00fcsste?\"\n\n[232] Called in i. 7-11 the Sar-hassar\u00ees\u00eem (comp. Jer. xxxix. 3; Gen.\nxxxvii. 36, _marg._; 2 Kings xviii. 17; Esther ii. 3). This officer\nnow bears the title of _Gyzlar Agha_.\n\n[233] Isa. xxxix. 6, 7.\n\n[234] Athen., _Deipnos_, xi. 583. See Bevan, p. 60; Max M\u00fcller in\nPusey, p. 565. How Professor Fuller can urge the presence of these\nPersian words in proof of the genuineness of Daniel (_Speaker's\nCommentary_, p. 250) I cannot understand. For Daniel does not seem\nto have survived beyond the third year of the Persian dominion, and\nit is extremely difficult to suppose that all these Persian words,\nincluding titles of Nebuchadrezzar's officials, were already current\namong the Babylonians. On the other hand, _Babylonian_ words seem to\nbe rare, though Daniel is represented as living nearly the whole of\na long life in Babylon. There is no validity in the argument that\nthese words could not have been known in the days of the Maccabees,\n\"for half of them are common in Syria, though the oldest extant\nSyriac writers are _later by three centuries_ than the time of the\nMaccabees\" (Bevan, p. 41).\n\n[235] The name Daniel occurs among Ezra's contemporaries in Ezra\nviii. 2; Neh. x. 7, and the other names in Neh. viii. 4, x. 3, 24; 1\nEsdras ix. 44.\n\n[236] _Balatsu-utsur._ The name in this form had nothing to do with\nBel, as the writer of Daniel seems to have supposed (Dan. iv. 5), nor\nyet with Beltis, the wife of Bel. See _supra_, p. 47. Comp. the names\nNabusarutsur, Sinsarutsur, Assursarutsur. Also comp. _Inscr. Semit._,\nii. 38, etc. Pseudo-Epiphanius says that Nebuchadrezzar meant Daniel\nto be co-heir with his son Belshazzar.\n\n[237] F. Delitzsch calls Meshach _vox hybrida_. Neither \"Shadrach\"\nnor \"Meshach\" occurs on the monuments. \"That the imposition of names\nis a symbol of mastership over slaves is plain\" (S. Chrys., _Opp._,\niii. 21; Pusey, p. 16). Comp. 2 Kings xxiii. 34 (Egyptians); xxiv. 17\n(Babylonians); Ezra v. 14, Esther ii. 7 (Persians).\n\n[238] Comp. Obadiah, Abdiel, Abdallah, etc. Schrader says, p. 429: \"The\nsupposition that Nebo was altered to Nego, out of a contumelious desire\n(which Jews often displayed) to alter, avoid, and insult the names of\nidols, is out of place, since the other names are not altered.\"\n\n[239] Jos., _Antt._, XII. v. 1; Derenbourg, _Palestine_, p. 34;\nEwald, _Hist._, v. 294 (E. Tr.); Munk, _Palestine_, p. 495, etc.\n\n[240] See Ewald, _Gesch. Isr._, vi. 654. \"They shall eat unclean\nthings in Assyria\" (Hosea ix. 3). \"The children of Israel shall eat\ntheir defiled bread among the Gentiles\" (Ezek. iv. 13, 14).\n\n[241] 1 Macc. i. 62, 63.\n\n[242] 2 Macc. vi. 18-31. Comp. the LXX. addition to Esther iv. 14, v.\n4, where she is made to plead before God that she had not tasted of\nthe table of Haman or of the king's banquet. So Judith takes \"clean\"\nbread with her into the camp of Holofernes (Judith x. 5), and Judas\nand his followers live on herbs in the desert (2 Macc. v. 27). The\n_Mishnah_ even forbids to take the bread, oil, or milk of the heathen.\n\n[243] _Prophets of the O. T._, p. 184 (E. Tr.).\n\n[244] Mr. Bevan says that the verb for \"defile\" (\u05d2\u05d0\u05dc), as a ritual\nterm for the idea of ceremonial uncleanness, is post-exilic; the\nPentateuch and Ezekiel used \u05d8\u05de\u05d0 (_Comment._, p. 61). The idea\nintended is that the three boys avoided meat which might have been\nkilled with the blood and offered to idols, and therefore was not\n_Kashar_ (Exod. xxxiv. 15).\n\n[245] Jos., _Vit._, iii. Comp. Isa. lii. 11.\n\n[246] Mark vii. 19 (according to the true reading and translation).\n\n[247] Acts x. 14.\n\n[248] 1 Cor. xi. 25. This rigorism was specially valued by the\nEssenes and Therapeut\u00e6. See Derenbourg, _Palestine_, note, vi.\n\n[249] Plato, _Alcib._, i. 37; Xen., _Cyrop._, i. 2. Youths entered\nthe king's service at the age of seventeen.\n\n[250] Lit. \"sadder.\" LXX., \u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03af.\n\n[251] LXX., \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bb\u1ff3.\n\n[252] Perhaps the Assyrian _matstsara_, \"guardian\" (Delitzsch). There\nare various other guesses (Behrmann, p. 5).\n\n[253] Heb., \u05d6\u05b5\u05e8\u05b9\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd; LXX., \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1; Vulg., _legumina_. Abn Ezra\ntook the word to mean \"rice.\" Comp. Deut. xii. 15, 16; 1 Sam. xvii.\n17, 18. Comp. Josephus (_Vit._, iii.), who tells us how the Jewish\npriests, prisoners in Rome, fed on \u03c3\u03cd\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03cd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[254] Ewald, _Antiquities_, p. 131 f.\n\n[255] Pusey (p. 17) quotes from Chardin's notes in Harmer (_Obs._,\nlix.): \"I have remarked that the countenance of the Kechicks (monks)\nare, in fact, more rosy and smooth than those of others, and that\nthose who fast much are, notwithstanding, very beautiful, sparkling\nwith health, with a clear and lively countenance.\"\n\n[256] The _Chartumm\u00eem_ are like the Egyptian \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2. It is\ndifficult to conceive that there was less chance of pollution in\nbeing elaborately trained in heathen magic and dream-interpretation\nthan in eating Babylonian food. But this was, so to speak, _extra\nfabulam_. It did not enter into the writer's scheme of moral\nedification. If, however, the story is meant to imply that these\nyouths accepted the heathen training, though (as we know from tablets\nand inscriptions) the incantations, etc., in which it abounded were\nintimately connected with idolatry, and were entirely unharmed by it,\nthis may indicate that the writer did not disapprove of the \"Greek\ntraining\" which Antiochus tried to introduce, so far as it merely\ninvolved an acquaintance with Greek learning and literature. This is\nthe view of Gr\u00e4tz. If so, the writer belonged to the more liberal\nJewish school which did not object to a study of the _Chokmath\nJavan\u00eeth_, or \"Wisdom of Javan\" (Derenbourg, _Palestine_, p. 361).\n\n[257] LXX., \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4' \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. Considering the normal degradation\nof pages at Oriental courts, of which Rycaut (referred to by Pusey,\np. 18) \"gives a horrible account,\" their escape from the corruption\naround them was a blessed reward of their faithfulness. They may now\nhave been seventeen, the age for entering the king's service (Xen.,\n_Cyrop._, I. ii. 8). On the ordinary curse of the rule of eunuchs at\nEastern courts see an interesting note in Pusey, p. 21.\n\n[258] On the names see Gesenius, _Isaiah_, ii. 355.\n\n[259] Alluded to in ix. 25.\n\n[260] _Daniel_, pp. 20, 21.\n\n[261] Comp. Gen. xxxix. 21; 1 Kings viii. 50; Neh. i. 1; Psalm cvi. 46.\n\n[262] Lam. iv. 7.\n\n[263] Hor., _Sat._, II. ii. 77.\n\n[264] Milton, _Reason of Church Government_.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n\n                  _THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES_\n\n     \"With thee will I break in pieces rulers and captains.\"--JER.\n     li. 23.\n\n\nThe Book of Daniel is constructed with consummate skill to teach the\nmighty lessons which it was designed to bring home to the minds of\nits readers, not only in the age of its first appearance, but for\never. It is a book which, so far from being regarded as unworthy\nof its place in the Canon by those who cannot accept it as either\ngenuine or authentic, is valued by many such critics as a very noble\nwork of inspired genius, from which all the difficulties are removed\nwhen it is considered in the light of its true date and origin. This\nsecond chapter belongs to all time. All that might be looked upon as\ninvolving harshnesses, difficulties, and glaring impossibilities,\nif it were meant for literal history and prediction, vanishes when\nwe contemplate it in its real perspective as a lofty specimen of\nimaginative fiction, used, like the parables of our Blessed Lord, as\nthe vehicle for the deepest truths. We shall see how the imagery of\nthe chapter produced a deep impress on the imagination of the holiest\nthinkers--how magnificent a use is made of it fifteen centuries later\nby the great poet of medi\u00e6val Catholicism.[265] It contains the germs\nof the only philosophy of history which has stood the test of time.\nIt symbolises that ultimate conviction of the Psalmist that \"God is\nthe Governor among the nations.\" No other conviction can suffice to\ngive us consolation amid the perplexity which surrounds the passing\nphases of the destinies of empires.\n\nThe first chapter serves as a keynote of soft, simple, and delightful\nmusic by way of overture. It calms us for the contemplation of the\nawful and tumultuous scenes that are now in succession to be brought\nbefore us.\n\nThe model which the writer has had in view in this _Haggadah_ is the\nforty-first chapter of the Book of Genesis. In both chapters we have\nmagnificent heathen potentates--Pharaoh of Egypt, and Nebuchadrezzar\nof Babylon. In both chapters the kings dream dreams by which they\nare profoundly troubled. In both, their spirits are saddened. In\nboth, they send for all the _Chakam\u00eem_ and all the _Chartumm\u00eem_ of\ntheir kingdoms to interpret the dreams. In both, these professional\nmagicians prove themselves entirely incompetent to furnish the\ninterpretation. In both, the failure of the heathen oneirologists is\nemphasised by the immediate success of a Jewish captive. In both, the\ncaptives are described as young, gifted, and beautiful. In both, the\ninterpretation of the king's dream is rewarded by the elevation to\nprincely civil honours. In both, the immediate elevation to ruling\nposition is followed by life-long faithfulness and prosperity.\nWhen we add that there are even close verbal resemblances between\nthe chapters, it is difficult not to believe that the one has been\ninfluenced by the other.\n\nThe dream is placed \"in the second year of the reign of\nNebuchadnezzar.\" The date is surprising; for the first chapter has\nmade Nebuchadrezzar a king of Babylon after the siege of Jerusalem\n\"in the third year of Jehoiakim\"; and setting aside the historic\nimpossibilities involved in that date, this scene would then fall in\nthe _second_ year of the probation of Daniel and his companions, and\nat a time when Daniel could only have been a boy of fifteen.[266]\nThe apologists get over the difficulty with the ease which suffices\nsuperficial readers who are already convinced. Thus Rashi says\n\"_the second year of Nebuchadnezzar_,\" meaning \"_the second year\nafter the destruction of the Temple_,\" _i.e._, his twentieth year!\nJosephus, no less arbitrarily, makes it mean \"the second year\nafter the devastation of Egypt.\"[267] By such devices anything may\nstand for anything. Hengstenberg and his school, after having made\nNebuchadrezzar a king, conjointly with his father--a fact of which\nhistory knows nothing, and indeed seems to exclude--say that the\nsecond year of his reign does not mean the second year after he\nbecame king, but the second year of his independent rule after the\ndeath of Nabopolassar. This style of interpretation is very familiar\namong harmonists, and it makes the interpretation of Scripture\nperpetually dependent on pure fancy. It is perhaps sufficient to\nsay that Jewish writers, in works meant for spiritual teaching,\ntroubled themselves extremely little with minuti\u00e6 of this kind. Like\nthe Greek dramatists, they were unconcerned with details, to which\nthey attached no importance, which they regarded as lying outside\nthe immediate purpose of their narrative. But if any explanation be\nneedful, the simplest way is, with Ewald, Herzfeld, and Lenormant, to\nmake a slight alteration in the text, and to read \"in the _twelfth_\"\ninstead of \"in the _second_ year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.\"\n\nThere was nothing strange in the notion that God should have\nvouchsafed a prophetic dream to a heathen potentate. Such instances\nhad already been recorded in the case of Pharaoh (Gen. xli.), as\nwell as of his chief courtiers (Gen. xl.); and in the case of\nAbimelech (Gen. xx. 5-7). It was also a Jewish tradition that it\nwas in consequence of a dream that Pharaoh Necho had sent a warning\nto Josiah not to advance against him to the Battle of Megiddo.[268]\nSuch dreams are recorded in the cuneiform inscriptions as having\noccurred to Assyrian monarchs. Ishtar, the goddess of battles, had\nappeared to Assur-bani-pal, and promised him safety in his war\nagainst Teumman, King of Elam; and the dream of a seer had admonished\nhim to take severe steps against his rebel brother, the Viceroy of\nBabylon. Gyges, King of Lydia, had been warned in a dream to make\nalliance with Assur-bani-pal. In Egypt Am\u00ean-meri-hout had been warned\nby a dream to unite Egypt against the Assyrians.[269] Similarly\nin Persian history Afrasiab has an ominous dream, and summons all\nthe astrologers to interpret it; and some of them bid him pay no\nattention to it.[270] Xerxes (Herod., iii. 19) and Astyages (Herod.,\ni. 108) have dreams indicative of future prosperity or adversity. The\nfundamental conception of the chapter was therefore in accordance\nwith history[271]--though to say, with the _Speaker's Commentary_,\nthat these parallels \"_endorse the authenticity_ of the Biblical\nnarratives,\" is either to use inaccurate terms, or to lay the\nunhallowed fire of false argument on the sacred altar of truth. It\nis impossible to think without a sigh of the vast amount which would\nhave to be extracted from so-called \"orthodox\" commentaries, if such\npassages were rigidly reprobated as a dishonour to the cause of God.\n\nNebuchadrezzar then--in the second or twelfth year of his\nreign--dreamed a dream, by which (as in the case of Pharaoh) his\nspirit was troubled and his sleep interrupted.[272] His state of\nmind on waking is a psychological condition with which we are\nall familiar. We awake in a tremor. We have seen something which\ndisquieted us, but we cannot recall what it was; we have had a\nfrightful dream, but we can only remember the terrifying impression\nwhich it has left upon our minds.\n\nPharaoh, in the story of Joseph, remembered his dreams, and\nonly asked the professors of necromancy to furnish him with its\ninterpretation. But Nebuchadrezzar is here represented as a rasher\nand fiercer despot, not without a side-glance at the raging folly\nand tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes. He has at his command an army\nof priestly prognosticators, whose main function it is to interpret\nthe various omens of the future. Of what use were they, if they\ncould not be relied upon in so serious an exigency? Were they to be\nmaintained in opulence and dignity all their lives, only to fail him\nat a crisis? It was true that he had forgotten the dream, but it was\nobviously one of supreme importance; it was obviously an intimation\nfrom the gods: was it not clearly their duty to say what it meant?\n\nSo Nebuchadrezzar summoned together the whole class of Babylonian\naugurs in all their varieties--the _Chartumm\u00eem_, \"magicians,\"\nor book-learned;[273] the _Ashshaph\u00eem_, \"enchanters\";[274] the\n_Mekashaph\u00eem_, \"sorcerers\";[275] and the _Kasd\u00eem_, to which the\nwriter gives the long later sense of \"dream-interpreters,\" which had\nbecome prevalent in his own day.[276] In later verses he adds two\nfurther sections of the students--the _Khakham\u00eem_, \"wise men,\" and\nthe _Gazer\u00eem_, or \"soothsayers.\" Attempts have often been made, and\nmost recently by Lenormant, to distinguish accurately between these\nclasses of magi, but the attempts evaporate for the most part into\nshadowy etymologies.[277] It seems to have been a literary habit\nwith the author to amass a number of names and titles together.[278]\nIt is a part of the stateliness and leisureliness of style which he\nadopts, and he gives no indication of any sense of difference between\nthe classes which he enumerates, either here or when he describes\nvarious ranks of Babylonian officials.\n\nWhen they were assembled before him, the king informed them that he\nhad dreamed an important dream, but that it produced such agitation\nof spirit as had caused him to forget its import.[279] He plainly\nexpected them to supply the failure of his memory, for \"a dream not\ninterpreted,\" say the Rabbis, \"is like a letter not read.\"[280]\n\nThen spake the Chaldeans to the king, and their answer follows in\nAramaic (_Aram\u00eeth_), a language which continues to be used till the\nend of chap. vii. The Western Aramaic, however, here employed could\nnot have been the language in which they spoke, but their native\nBabylonian, a Semitic dialect more akin to Eastern Aramaic. The word\n_Aram\u00eeth_ here, as in Ezra iv. 7, is probably a gloss or marginal\nnote, to point out the sudden change in the language of the Book.\n\nWith the courtly phrase, \"O king, live for ever,\" they promised to\ntell the king the interpretation, if he would tell them the dream.\n\n\"That I cannot do,\" said the king, \"for it is gone from me.\nNevertheless, if you do not tell me both the dream and its\ninterpretation, you shall be hacked limb by limb, and your houses\nshall be made a dunghill.\"[281]\n\nThe language was that of brutal despotism such as had been customary\nfor centuries among the ferocious tyrants of Assyria. The punishment\nof dismemberment, dichotomy, or death by mutilation was common\namong them, and had constantly been depicted on their monuments. It\nwas doubtless known to the Babylonians also, being familiar to the\napathetic cruelty of the East. Similarly the turning of the houses of\ncriminals into draught-houses was a vengeance practised among other\nnations.[282] On the other hand, if the \"Chaldeans\" arose to the\noccasion, the king would give them rewards and great honours. It is\ncurious to observe that the Septuagint translators, with Antiochus\nin their mind, render the verse in a form which would more directly\nremind their readers of Seleucid methods. \"If you fail,\" they make\nthe king say, \"you shall be made an example, and your goods shall be\nforfeited to the crown.\"[283]\n\nWith \"nervous servility\" the magi answer to the king's extravagantly\nunreasonable demand, that he must tell them the dream before they\ncan tell him the interpretation. Ewald is probably not far wrong in\nthinking that a subtle element of irony and humour underlies this\nscene. It was partly intended as a satirical reflection on the mad\nvagaries of Epiphanes.\n\nFor the king at once breaks out into fury, and tells them that they\nonly want to gain (lit. \"buy\") time;[284] but that this should not\navail them. The dream had evidently been of crucial significance and\nextreme urgency; something important, and perhaps even dreadful, must\nbe in the air. The very _raison d'\u00eatre_ of these thaumaturgists and\nstargazers was to read the omens of the future. If the stars told of\nany human events, they could not fail to indicate something about the\nvast trouble which overshadowed the monarch's dream, even though he\nhad forgotten its details. The king gave them to understand that he\nlooked on them as a herd of impostors; that their plea for delay was\ndue to mere tergiversation;[285] and that, in spite of the lying and\ncorrupt words which they had prepared in order to gain respite \"till\nthe time be changed\"[286]--that is, until they were saved by some\n\"lucky day\" or change of fortune[287]--there was but one sentence\nfor them, which could only be averted by their vindicating their own\nimmense pretensions, and telling him his dream.\n\nThe \"Chaldeans\" naturally answered that the king's request was\nimpossible. The adoption of the Aramaic at this point may be partly\ndue to the desire for local colouring.[288] No king or ruler in the\nworld had ever imposed such a test on any _Kartum_ or _Ashshaph_ in\nthe world.[289] No living man could possibly achieve anything so\ndifficult. There were some gods whose dwelling _is_ with flesh; they\ntenant the souls of their servants. But it is not in the power of\nthese genii to reveal what the king demands; they are limited by the\nweakness of the souls which they inhabit.[290] It can only be done by\nthose highest divinities whose dwelling is not with flesh, but who\n\n                                          \"haunt\n            The lucid interspace of world and world,\"\n\nand are too far above mankind to mingle with their thoughts.[291]\n\nThereupon the unreasonable king was angry and very furious, and the\ndecree went forth that the magi were to be slain _en masse_.\n\nHow it was that Daniel and his companions were not summoned to\nhelp the king, although they had been already declared to be \"ten\ntimes wiser\" than all the rest of the astrologers and magicians put\ntogether, is a feature in the story with which the writer does not\ntrouble himself, because it in no way concerned his main purpose.\nNow, however, since they were prominent members of the magian guild,\nthey are doomed to death among their fellows. Thereupon Daniel sought\nan interview with Arioch, \"the chief of the bodyguard,\"[292] and\nasked with gentle prudence why the decree was so harshly urgent. By\nArioch's intervention he gained an interview with Nebuchadrezzar, and\npromised to tell him the dream and its interpretation, if only the\nking would grant him a little time--perhaps but a single night.[293]\n\nThe delay was conceded, and Daniel went to his three companions, and\nurged then to join in prayer that God would make known the secret\nto them and spare their lives. Christ tells us that \"if two shall\nagree on earth as touching anything that they ask, it shall be done\nfor them.\"[294] The secret was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the\nnight, and he blessed \"the God of heaven.\"[295] Wisdom and might\nare His. Not dependent on \"lucky\" or \"unlucky\" days, He changeth\nthe times and seasons;[296] He setteth down one king and putteth up\nanother. By His revelation of deep and sacred things--for the light\ndwelleth with Him--He had, in answer to their common prayer, made\nknown the secret.[297]\n\nAccordingly Daniel bids Arioch not to execute the magians, but to go\nand tell the king that he will reveal to him the interpretation of\nhis dream.\n\nThen, by an obvious verbal inconsistency in the story, Arioch\nis represented as going with haste to the king, with Daniel, and\nsaying that _he_ had found a captive Jew who would answer the king's\ndemands. Arioch could never have claimed any such merit, seeing that\nDaniel had already given his promise to Nebuchadrezzar in person,\nand did not need to be described. The king formally puts to Daniel\nthe question whether he could fulfil his pledge; and Daniel answers\nthat, though none of the _Khakham\u00eem_, _Ashshaph\u00eem_, _Chartumm\u00eem_, or\n_Gazer\u00eem_[298] could tell the king his dream, yet there is a God in\nheaven--higher, it is implied, than either the genii or those whose\ndwelling is not with mortals--who reveals secrets, and has made known\nto the king what shall be in the latter days.[299]\n\nThe king, before he fell asleep, had been deeply pondering the issues\nof the future; and God, \"the revealer of secrets,\"[300] had revealed\nthose issues to him, not because of any supreme wisdom possessed by\nDaniel, but simply that the interpretation might be made known.[301]\n\nThe king had seen[302] a huge gleaming, terrible colossus of many\ncolours and of different metals, but otherwise not unlike the huge\ncolossi which guarded the portals of his own palace. Its head was\nof fine gold; its torso of silver; its belly and thighs of brass;\nits legs of iron; its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.[303]\nBut while he gazed upon it as it reared into the sunlight, as though\nin mute defiance and insolent security, its grim metallic glare, a\nmysterious and unforeseen fate fell upon it.[304] The fragment of a\nrock broke itself loose, not with hands, smote the image upon its\nfeet of iron and clay, and broke them to pieces. It had now nothing\nleft to stand upon, and instantly the hollow multiform monster\ncollapsed into promiscuous ruins.[305] Its shattered fragments became\nlike the chaff of the summer threshing-floor, and the wind swept them\naway;[306] but the rock, unhewn by any earthly hands, grew over the\nfragments into a mountain that filled the earth.\n\nThat was the haunting and portentous dream; and this was its\ninterpretation:--\n\nThe head of gold was Nebuchadrezzar himself, the king of what Isaiah\nhad called \"the golden city\"[307]--a King of kings, ruler over the\nbeasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and the children of\nmen.[308]\n\nAfter him should come a second and an inferior kingdom, symbolised\nby the arms and heart of silver.\n\nThen a third kingdom of brass.\n\nFinally a fourth kingdom, strong and destructive as iron. But in this\nfourth kingdom was an element of weakness, symbolised by the fact\nthat the feet are partly of iron and partly of weak clay. An attempt\nshould be made, by intermarriages, to give greater coherency to these\nelements; but it should fail, because they could not intermix. In the\ndays of these kings, indicated by the ten toes of the image, swift\ndestruction should come upon the kingdoms from on high; for the King of\nheaven should set up a kingdom indestructible and eternal, which should\nutterly supersede all former kingdoms. \"The intense nothingness and\ntransitoriness of man's might in its highest estate, and the might of\nGod's kingdom, are the chief subjects of this vision.\"[309]\n\nVolumes have been written about the four empires indicated by the\nconstituents of the colossus in this dream; but it is entirely\nneedless to enter into them at length. The vast majority of the\ninterpretations have been simply due to _a-priori_ prepossessions,\nwhich are arbitrary and baseless. The object has been to make the\ninterpretations fit in with preconceived theories of prophecy, and\nwith the traditional errors about the date and object of the Book\nof Daniel. If we first see the irresistible evidence that the Book\nappeared in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, and then observe that\nall its earthly \"predictions\" culminate in a minute description of\nhis epoch, the general explanation of the four empires, apart from\nan occasional and a subordinate detail, becomes perfectly clear. In\nthe same way the progress of criticism has elucidated in its general\noutlines the interpretation of the Book which has been so largely\ninfluenced by the Book of Daniel--the Revelation of St. John. The\nall-but-unanimous consensus of the vast majority of the sanest and\nmost competent exegetes now agrees in the view that the Apocalypse\nwas written in the age of Nero, and that its tone and visions were\npredominantly influenced by his persecution of the early Christians,\nas the Book of Daniel was by the ferocities of Antiochus against\nthe faithful Jews. Ages of persecution, in which plain-speaking was\nimpossible to the oppressed, were naturally prolific of apocalyptic\ncryptographs. What has been called the \"futurist\" interpretation\nof these books--which, for instance, regards the fourth empire of\nDaniel as some kingdom of Antichrist as yet unmanifested--is now\nuniversally abandoned. It belongs to impossible forms of exegesis,\nwhich have long been discredited by the boundless variations of\nabsurd conjectures, and by the repeated refutation of the predictions\nwhich many have ventured to base upon these erroneous methods. Even\nso elaborate a work as Elliott's _Hor\u00e6 Apocalyptic\u00e6_ would now be\nregarded as a curious anachronism.\n\nThat the first empire, represented by the head of gold, is the\nBabylonian, concentrated in Nebuchadrezzar himself, is undisputed,\nbecause it is expressly stated by the writer (ii. 37, 38).\n\nNor can there be any serious doubt, if the Book be one coherent\nwhole, written by one author, that by the fourth empire is meant,\nas in later chapters, that of Alexander and his successors--\"_the\nDiadochi_,\" as they are often called.\n\nFor it must be regarded as certain that the four elements of the\ncolossus, which indicate the four empires as they are presented to the\nimagination of the heathen despot, are closely analogous to the same\nfour empires which in the seventh chapter present themselves as wild\nbeasts out of the sea to the imagination of the Hebrew seer. Since the\nfourth empire is there, beyond all question, that of Alexander and his\nsuccessors, the symmetry and purpose of the Book prove conclusively\nthat the fourth empire here is also the Gr\u00e6co-Macedonian, strongly\nand irresistibly founded by Alexander, but gradually sinking to utter\nweakness by its own divisions, in the persons of the kings who split\nhis dominion into four parts. If this needed any confirmation, we find\nit in the eighth chapter, which is mainly concerned with Alexander\nthe Great and Antiochus Epiphanes; and in the eleventh chapter,\nwhich enters with startling minuteness into the wars, diplomacy, and\nintermarriages of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties. In viii. 21 we\nare expressly told that the strong he-goat is \"the King of Grecia,\"\nwho puts an end to the kingdoms of Media and Persia. The arguments of\nHengstenberg, Pusey, etc., that the Greek Empire was a civilising and\nan ameliorating power, apply at least as strongly to the Roman Empire.\nBut when Alexander thundered his way across the dreamy East, he was\nlooked upon as a sort of shattering levin-bolt. The interconnexion\nof these visions is clearly marked even here, for the juxtaposition\nof iron and miry clay is explained by the clause \"they shall mingle\nthemselves with the seed of men:[310] but they shall not cleave one\nto another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.\" This refers to the\nsame attempts to consolidate the rival powers of the Kings of Egypt\nand Syria which are referred to in xi. 6, 7, and 17. It is a definite\nallusion which becomes meaningless in the hands of those interpreters\nwho attempt to explain the iron empire to be that of the Romans.\n\"That the _Greek_ Empire is to be the last of the Gentile empires\nappears from viii. 17, where the vision is said to refer to 'the time\nof the end.' Moreover, in the last vision of all (x.-xii.), the rise\nand progress of the Greek Empire are related with many details, _but\nnothing whatever_ is said of any subsequent empire. Thus to introduce\nthe Roman Empire into the Book of Daniel is to set at naught the\nplainest rules of exegesis.\"[311]\n\nThe reason of the attempt is to make the termination of the\nprophecy coincide with the coming of Christ, which is then--quite\nunhistorically--regarded as followed by the destruction of the fourth\nand last empire. But the interpretation can only be thus arrived at\nby a falsification of facts. For the victory of Christianity over\nPaganism, so decisive and so Divine, was in no sense a destruction of\nthe Roman Empire. In the first place that victory was not achieved\ntill three centuries after Christ's advent, and in the second place\nit was rather a continuation and defence of the Roman Empire than its\ndestruction. The Roman Empire, in spite of Alaric and Genseric and\nAttila, and because of its alliance with Christianity, may be said to\nhave practically continued down to modern times. So far from being\nregarded as the shatterers of the Roman Empire, the Christian popes and\nbishops were, and were often called, the _Defensores Civitatis_. That\nmany of the Fathers, following many of the Rabbis, regarded Rome as the\niron empire, and the fourth wild beast, was due to the fact that until\nmodern days the science of criticism was unknown, and exegesis was\nbased on the shifting sand.[312] If we are to accept their authority on\nthis question, we must accept it on many others, respecting views and\nmethods which have now been unanimously abandoned by the deeper insight\nand advancing knowledge of mankind. The influence of Jewish exegesis\nover the Fathers--erroneous as were its principles and fluctuating\nas were its conclusions--was enormous. It was not unnatural for the\nlater Jews, living under the hatred and oppression of Rome, and still\nyearning for the fulfilment of Messianic promises, to identify Rome\nwith the fourth empire. And this seems to have been the opinion of\nJosephus, whatever that may be worth. But it is doubtful whether it\ncorresponds to another and earlier Jewish tradition. For among the\nFathers even Ephr\u00e6m Syrus identifies the _Macedonian_ Empire with the\nfourth empire, and he may have borrowed this from Jewish tradition.\nBut of how little value were early conjectures may be seen in the fact\nthat, for reasons analogous to those which had made earlier Rabbis\nregard Rome as the fourth empire, two medi\u00e6val exegetes so famous as\nSaadia the Gaon and Abn Ezra had come to the conclusion that the fourth\nempire was--the Mohammedan![313]\n\nEvery detail of the vision as regards the fourth kingdom is minutely\nin accord with the kingdom of Alexander. It can only be applied\nto Rome by deplorable shifts and sophistries, the untenability of\nwhich we are now more able to estimate than was possible in earlier\ncenturies. So far indeed as the _iron_ is concerned, that might by\nitself stand equally well for Rome or for Macedon, if Dan. vii. 7, 8,\nviii. 3, 4, and xi. 3 did not definitely describe the conquests of\nAlexander. But all which follows is meaningless as applied to Rome,\nnor is there anything in Roman history to explain any division of\nthe kingdom (ii. 41), or attempt to strengthen it by intermarriage\nwith other kingdoms (ver. 43). In the divided Gr\u00e6co-Macedonian\nEmpires of the Diadochi, the dismemberment of one mighty kingdom\ninto the four much weaker ones of Cassander, Ptolemy, Lysimachus,\nand Seleucus began immediately after the death of Alexander (B.C.\n323). It was completed as the result of twenty-two years of war after\nthe Battle of Ipsus (B.C. 301). The marriage of Antiochus Theos to\nBerenice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus (B.C. 249, Dan. xi. 6),\nwas as ineffectual as the later marriage of Ptolemy V. (Epiphanes)\nto Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus the Great (B.C. 193), to\nintroduce strength or unity into the distracted kingdoms (xi. 17, 18).\n\nThe two legs and feet are possibly meant to indicate the two most\nimportant kingdoms--that of the Seleucid\u00e6 in Asia, and that of\nthe Ptolemies in Egypt. If we are to press the symbolism still\nmore closely, the ten toes may shadow forth the ten kings who are\nindicated by the ten horns in vii. 7.\n\nSince, then, we are told that the first empire represents\nNebuchadrezzar by the head of gold, and since we have incontestably\nverified the fourth empire to be the Greek Empire of Alexander and\nhis successors, it only remains to identify the intermediate empires\nof silver and brass. And it becomes obvious that they _can_ only be\nthe Median and the Persian. That the writer of Daniel regarded these\nempires as distinct is clear from v. 31 and vi.\n\nIt is obvious that the silver is meant for the Median Empire,\nbecause, closely as it was allied with the Persian in the view of the\nwriter (vi. 9, 13, 16, viii. 7), he yet spoke of the two as separate.\nThe rule of \"Darius the Mede,\" not of \"Cyrus the Persian,\" is, in his\npoint of view, the \"other smaller kingdom\" which arose after that of\nNebuchadrezzar (v. 31). Indeed, this is also indicated in the vision\nof the ram (viii. 3); for it has two horns, of which the higher and\nstronger (the Persian Empire) rose up after the other (the Median\nEmpire); just as in this vision the Persian Empire represented by the\nthighs of brass is clearly stronger than the Median Empire, which,\nbeing wealthier, is represented as being of silver, but is smaller\nthan the other.[314] Further, the second empire is represented later\non by the second beast (vii. 5), and the three ribs in its mouth may\nbe meant for the three satrapies of vi. 2.\n\nIt may then be regarded as a certain result of exegesis that the four\nempires are--(1) the Babylonian; (2) the Median; (3) the Persian; (4)\nthe Gr\u00e6co-Macedonian.\n\nBut what is the stone cut without hands which smote the image upon\nhis feet? It brake them in pieces, and made the collapsing _d\u00e9bris_\nof the colossus like chaff scattered by the wind from the summer\nthreshing-floor. It grew till it became a great mountain which filled\nthe earth.\n\nThe meaning of the image being first smitten upon its _feet_ is that\nthe overthrow falls on the iron empire.\n\nAll alike are agreed that by the mysterious rock-fragment the writer\nmeant the Messianic Kingdom. The \"mountain\" out of which (as is\nhere first mentioned) the stone is cut is \"the Mount Zion.\"[315] It\ncommences \"_in the days of these kings_.\" Its origin is not earthly,\nfor it is \"cut without hands.\" It represents \"a kingdom\" which \"shall\nbe set up by the God of heaven,\" and shall destroy and supersede all\nthe kingdoms, and shall stand for ever.\n\nWhether a personal Messiah was definitely prominent in the mind of\nthe writer is a question which will come before us when we consider\nthe seventh chapter. Here there is only a Divine Kingdom; and that\nthis is the dominion of Israel seems to be marked by the expression,\n\"the kingdom shall not be left to another people.\"\n\nThe prophecy probably indicates the glowing hopes which the writer\nconceived of the future of his nation, even in the days of its direst\nadversity, in accordance with the predictions of the mighty prophets\nhis predecessors, whose writings he had recently studied. Very few\nof those predictions have as yet been literally fulfilled; not one\nof them was fulfilled with such immediateness as the prophets\nconceived, when they were \"rapt into future times.\" To the prophetic\nvision was revealed the glory that should be hereafter, but not the\ntimes and seasons, which God hath kept in His own power, and which\nJesus told His disciples were not even known to the Son of Man\nHimself in His human capacity.\n\nAntiochus died, and his attempts to force Hellenism upon the Jews\nwere so absolute a failure, that, in point of fact, his persecution\nonly served to stereotype the ceremonial institutions which--not\nentirely _proprio motu_, but misled by men like the false high\npriests Jason and Menelaus--he had attempted to obliterate. But the\nmagnificent expectations of a golden age to follow were indefinitely\ndelayed. Though Antiochus died and failed, the Jews became by no\nmeans unanimous in their religious policy. Even under the Hasmon\u00e6an\nprinces fierce elements of discord were at work in the midst of\nthem. Foreign usurpers adroitly used these dissensions for their own\nobjects, and in B.C. 37 Judaism acquiesced in the national acceptance\nof a depraved Edomite usurper in the person of Herod, and a section\nof the Jews attempted to represent _him_ as the promised Messiah![316]\n\nNot only was the Messianic prediction unfulfilled in its literal\naspect \"in the days of these kings,\"[317] but even yet it has by no\nmeans received its complete accomplishment. The \"stone cut without\nhands\" indicated the kingdom, not--as most of the prophets seem to\nhave imagined when they uttered words which meant more than they\nthemselves conceived--of the literal Israel, but of that ideal Israel\nwhich is composed, not of Jews, but of Gentiles. The divinest side of\nMessianic prophecy is the expression of that unquenchable hope and of\nthat indomitable faith which are the most glorious outcome of all that\nis most Divine in the spirit of man. That faith and hope have never\nfound even an ideal or approximate fulfilment save in Christ and in His\nkingdom, which is now, and shall be without end.\n\nBut apart from the Divine predictions of the eternal sunlight visible\non the horizon over vast foreshortened ages of time which to God\nare but as one day, let us notice how profound is the symbolism of\nthe vision--how well it expresses the surface glare, the inward\nhollowness, the inherent weakness, the varying successions, the\npredestined transience of overgrown empires. The great poet of\nCatholicism makes magnificent use of Daniel's image, and sees its\ndeep significance. He too describes the ideal of all earthly empire\nas a colossus of gold, silver, brass, and iron, which yet mainly\nrests on its right foot of baked and brittle clay. But he tells us\nthat every part of this image, except the gold, is crannied through\nand through by a fissure, down which there flows a constant stream of\ntears.[318] These effects of misery trickle downwards, working their\nway through the cavern in Mount Ida in which the image stands, till,\ndescending from rock to rock, they form those four rivers of hell,--\n\n            \"Abhorr\u00e8d Styx, the flood of deadly hate;\n             Sad Acheron of sorrow, black and deep;\n             Cocytus, named of lamentation loud\n             Heard on the rueful stream; fierce Phlegethon\n             Whose waves of torrent fire inflame with rage.\"[319]\n\nThere is a terrible grandeur in the emblem. Splendid and venerable\nlooks the idol of human empire in all its pomp and pricelessness. But\nunderneath its cracked and fissured weakness drop and trickle and\nstream the salt and bitter runnels of misery and anguish, till the\nrivers of agony are swollen into overflow by their coagulated scum.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt was natural that Nebuchadrezzar should have felt deeply impressed\nwhen the vanished outlines of his dream were thus recalled to him\nand its awful interpretation revealed. The manner in which he\nexpresses his amazed reverence may be historically improbable, but\nit is psychologically true. We are told that \"he fell upon his face\nand worshipped Daniel,\" and the word \"worshipped\" implies genuine\nadoration. That so magnificent a potentate should have lain on his\nface before a captive Jewish youth and adored him is amazing.[320] It\nis still more so that Daniel, without protest, should have accepted,\nnot only his idolatrous homage, but also the offering of \"an oblation\nand sweet incense.\"[321] That a Nebuchadrezzar should have been thus\nprostrate in the dust before their young countryman would no doubt be\na delightful picture to the Jews, and if, as we believe, the story\nis an unconnected _Haggada_, it may well have been founded on such\npassages as Isa. xlix. 23, \"Kings shall bow down to thee with their\nfaces toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet\";[322]\ntogether with Isa. lii. 15, \"Kings shall shut their mouths at him:\nfor that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which\nthey had not heard shall they perceive.\"\n\nBut it is much more amazing that Daniel, who, as a boy, had been so\nscrupulous about the Levitic ordinance of unclean meats, in the scruple\nagainst which the _gravamen_ lay in the possibility of their having\nbeen offered to idols,[323] should, as a man, have allowed himself\nto be treated exactly as the king treated his idols! To say that he\naccepted this worship because the king was not adoring _him_, but the\nGod whose power had been manifested in him,[324] is an idle subterfuge,\nfor that excuse is offered by all idolaters in all ages. Very different\nwas the conduct of Paul and Barnabas when the rude population of Lystra\nwished to worship them as incarnations of Hermes and Zeus. The moment\nthey heard of it they rent their clothes in horror, and leapt at once\namong the people, crying out, \"Sirs, why do ye such things? We also\nare men of like passions with you, and are preaching unto you that ye\nshould turn from these vain ones unto the Living God.\"[325]\n\nThat the King of Babylon should be represented as at once\nacknowledging the God of Daniel as \"a God of gods,\" though he was a\nfanatical votary of Bel-merodach, belongs to the general plan of the\nBook. Daniel received in reward many great gifts, and is made \"ruler\nof all the wise men of Babylon, and chief of the governors [_sign\u00een_]\nover all the wise men of Babylon.\" About his acceptance of the civil\noffice there is no difficulty; but there is a quite insuperable\nhistoric difficulty in his becoming a chief magian. All the wise men\nof Babylon, whom the king had just threatened with dismemberment\nas a pack of impostors, were, at any rate, a highly sacerdotal and\nessentially idolatrous caste. That Daniel should have objected to\nparticular kinds of food from peril of defilement, and yet that he\nshould have consented to be chief hierarch of a heathen cult, would\nindeed have been to strain at gnats and to swallow camels!\n\nAnd so great was the distinction which he earned by his\ninterpretation of the dream, that, at his further request, satrapies\nwere conferred on his three companions; but he himself, like\nMordecai, afterwards \"sat in the gate of the king.\"[326]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[265] Dante, _Inferno_, xiv. 94-120.\n\n[266] The Assyrian and Babylonian kings, however, only dated their\nreigns from the first new year after their accession.\n\n[267] _Antt._, X. x. 3.\n\n[268] 2 Chron. xxxv. 21. See _The Second Book of Kings_, p. 404\n(Expositor's Bible).\n\n[269] See Professor Fuller, _Speaker's Commentary_, vi. 265.\n\n[270] Malcolm, _Hist. of Persia_, i. 39.\n\n[271] The belief that dreams come from God is not peculiar to the\nJews, or to Egypt, or Assyria, or Greece (Hom., _Il._, i. 63; _Od._,\niv. 841), or Rome (Cic., _De Div._, _passim_), but to every nation of\nmankind, even the most savage.\n\n[272] Dan. ii. 1: \"His dreaming brake from him.\" Comp. vi. 18; Esther\nvi. 1: Jerome says, \"Umbra qu\u00e6dam, et, ut ita dicam, aura somnii\natque vestigium remansit in corde regis, ut, referentibus aliis\nposset reminisci eorum qu\u00e6 viderat.\"\n\n[273] Gen. xli. 8; Schrader, _K. A. T._, p. 26; _Records of the\nPast_, i. 136.\n\n[274] The word is peculiar to Daniel, both here in the Hebrew and\nin the Aramaic. Pusey calls it \"a common Syriac term, representing\nsome form of divination with which Daniel had become familiar in\nBabylonia\" (p. 40).\n\n[275] Exod. vii. 11; Deut. xviii. 10; Isa. xlvii. 9, 12. Assyrian\n_Kashshapu_.\n\n[276] As in the rule \"_Chald\u00e6os ne consulito_.\" See _supra_, p. 48.\n\n[277] The equivalents in the LXX., Vulgate, A.V., and other versions\nare mostly based on uncertain guess-work. See E. Meyer, _Gesch. d.\nAlterth._, i. 185; Hommel, _Gesch. Bab. u. Assyr._, v. 386; Behrmann,\np. 2.\n\n[278] _E.g._, iii. 2, 3, officers of state; iii. 4, 5, etc.,\ninstruments of music; iii. 21, clothes.\n\n[279] ii. 5: \"The dream is gone from me,\" as in ver. 8 (Theodotion,\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7). But the meaning may be the decree (or word) is \"sure\": for,\naccording to N\u00f6ldeke, _azda_ is a Persian word for \"_certain_.\" Comp.\nEsther vii. 7; Isa. xlv. 23.\n\n[280] _Berach\u00f4th_, f. 10, 2. This book supplies a charm to be spoken\nby one who has forgotten his dream (f. 55, 2).\n\n[281] Dan. ii. 5, iii. 29. Theodot., \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5. Lit. \"ye\nshall be made into limbs.\" The LXX. render it by \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9,\n_membratim concidor_, _in frusta fio_. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 51; Smith's\n_Assur-bani-pal_, p. 137. The word _haddam_, \"a limb,\" seems to be of\nPersian origin--in modern Persian _andam_. Hence the verb _had\u00eem_ in\nthe Targum of 1 Kings xviii. 33. Comp. 2 Macc. i. 16, \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n[282] Comp. Ezra vi. 11; 2 Kings x. 27; _Records of the Past_, i. 27,\n43.\n\n[283] In iii. 96, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Comp. 2 Macc. iii.\n13: \"But Heliodorus, because of the king's commandment, said, That in\nanywise it must be brought into the king's treasury.\"\n\n[284] LXX. Theodot., \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 (not in a _good_ sense, as in\nEph. v. 16; Col. iv. 5).\n\n[285] Theodot., \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5. Cf. John ix. 22.\n\n[286] Theodot., \u1f14\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3.\n\n[287] Esther iii. 7.\n\n[288] The word _Aram\u00eeth_ may be (as Lenormant thinks) a gloss, as in\nEzra iv. 7.\n\n[289] A curious parallel is adduced by Behrmann (_Daniel_, p. 7).\nRabia-ibn-nazr, King of Yemen, has a dream which he cannot recall,\nand acts precisely as Nebuchadrezzar does (W\u00fcstenfeld, p. 9).\n\n[290] See Lenormant, _La Magie_, pp. 181-183.\n\n[291] LXX., ii. 11: \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[292] Lit. \"chief of the slaughter-men\" or \"executioners.\" LXX.,\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. The title is perhaps taken from the story, which in this\nchapter is so prominently in the writer's mind, where the same title is\ngiven to Potiphar (Gen. xxxvii. 36). Comp. 2 Kings xxv. 8; Jer. xxxix.\n9. The name Arioch has been derived from _Er\u00ee-aku_, \"servant of the\nmoon-god\" (_supra_, p. 49), but is found in Gen. xiv. 1 as the name of\n\"the King of Ellasar.\" It is also found in Judith i. 6, \"Arioch, King\nof the Elym\u00e6ans.\" An Erim-ak\u00fb, King of Larsa, is found in cuneiform.\n\n[293] If Daniel went (as the text says) _in person_, he must have\nbeen already a very high official. (Comp. Esther v. 1; Herod., i.\n99.) If so, it would have been strange that he should not have been\nconsulted among the magians. All these details are regarded as\ninsignificant, being extraneous to the general purport of the story\n(Ewald, _Hist._, iii. 194).\n\n[294] Matt. xviii. 19. The LXX. interpolate a ritual gloss: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ae\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5 \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[295] The title is found in Gen. xxiv. 7, but only became common\nafter the Exile (Ezra i. 2, vi. 9, 10; Neh. i. 5, ii. 4).\n\n[296] Comp. Dan. vii. 12; Jer. xxvii. 7; Acts i. 7, \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03af; 1\nThess. v. 1; Acts xvii. 26, \u1f41\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.\n\n[297] With the phraseology of this prayer comp. Psalm xxxvi. 9, xli.,\ncxxxix. 12; Neh. ix. 5; 1 Sam. ii. 8; Jer. xxxii. 19; Job xii. 22.\n\n[298] Here the new title _Gazer\u00eem_, \"prognosticators,\" is added to\nthe others, and is equally vague. It may be derived from _Gazar_, \"to\ncut\"--that is, \"to determine.\"\n\n[299] Comp. Gen. xx. 3, xli. 25; Numb. xxii. 35.\n\n[300] Comp. Gen. xli. 45.\n\n[301] Dan. ii. 30: \"For _their_ sakes that shall make known the\ninterpretation to the king\" (A.V.). But the phrase seems merely to\nbe one of the vague forms for the impersonal which are common in the\n_Mishnah_. The R.V. and Ewald rightly render it as in the text.\n\n[302] Here we have (ver. 31) _aloo!_ \"behold!\" as in iv. 7, 10, vii.\n8; but in vii. 2, 5, 6, 7, 13, we have _aroo!_\n\n[303] In the four metals there is perhaps the same underlying thought\nas in the Hesiodic and ancient conceptions of the four ages of the\nworld (Ewald, _Hist._, i. 368). Comp. the vision of Zoroaster quoted\nfrom Delitzsch by Pusey, p. 97: \"Zoroaster saw a tree from whose roots\nsprang four trees of gold, silver, steel, and brass; and Ormuzd said to\nhim, 'This is the world; and the four trees are the four \"times\" which\nare coming.' After the fourth comes, according to Persian doctrine,\nSosiosh, the Saviour.\" Behrmann refers also to Bahman Yesht (Spiegel,\n_Eran. Alterth._, ii. 152); the Laws of Manu (Schr\u00f6der, _Ind. Litt._,\n448); and Roth (_Mythos von den Weltaltern_, 1860).\n\n[304] Much of the imagery seems to have been suggested by Jer. li.\n\n[305] Comp. Rev. xx. 11: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n[306] Psalm i. 4, ii. 9; Isa. xli. 15; Jer. li. 33, etc.\n\n[307] Isa. xiv. 4.\n\n[308] King of kings. Comp. Ezek. xxvi. 7; Ezra vii. 12; Isa.\nxxxvi. 4. It is the Babylonian _Shar-sharr\u00e2ni_, or _Sharru-rabbu_\n(Behrmann). The Rabbis tried (impossibly) to construe this title,\nwhich they thought only suitable to God, with the following clause.\nBut Nebuchadrezzar was so addressed (Ezek. xxvi. 7), as the Assyrian\nkings had been before him (Isa. x. 8), and the Persian kings were\nafter him (Ezra vii. 12). The expression seems strange, but comp.\nJer. xxvii. 6, xxviii. 14. The LXX. and Theodotion mistakenly\ninterpolate \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n[309] Pusey, p. 63.\n\n[310] Comp. Jer. xxxi. 27.\n\n[311] Bevan, p. 66.\n\n[312] The interpretation is first found, amid a chaos of false\nexegesis, in the Epistle of Barnabas, iv. 4, \u00a7 6.\n\n[313] See Bevan, p. 65.\n\n[314] On the distinction in the writer's mind between the Median and\nPersian Empires see v. 28, 31, vi. 8, 12, 15, ix. 1, xi. 1, compared\nwith vi. 28, x. 1. In point of fact, the Persians and Medians were\nlong spoken of as distinct, though they were closely allied; and to\nthe Medes had been specially attributed the forthcoming overthrow\nof Babylon: Jer. li. 28, \"Prepare against her the nations with the\nkings of the Medes.\" Comp. Jer. li. 11, and Isa. xiii. 17, xxi. 2,\n\"Besiege, O Media.\"\n\n[315] See Isa. ii. 2, xxviii. 16; Matt. xxi. 42-44. \"Le _mot_ de\nMessie n'est pas dans Daniel. Le mot de _Meshiach_, ix. 26, d\u00e9signe\nl'autorit\u00e9 (probablement sacerdotale) de la Jud\u00e9e\" (Renan, _Hist._,\niv. 358).\n\n[316] See Kuenen, _The Prophets_, iii.\n\n[317] No kings have been mentioned, but the ten toes symbolise ten\nkings. Comp. vii. 24.\n\n[318] Dante, _Inferno_, xiv. 94-120.\n\n[319] Milton, _Paradise Lost_, ii. 575.\n\n[320] It may be paralleled by the legendary prostrations of Alexander\nthe Great before the high priest Jaddua (Jos., _Antt._, XI. viii. 5),\nand of Edwin of Deira before Paulinus of York (B\u00e6da, _Hist._, ii.\n14-16).\n\n[321] Isa. xlvi. 6. The same verbs, \"they fall down, yea they\nworship,\" are there used of idols.\n\n[322] Comp. Isa. lx. 14: \"The sons also of them that afflicted thee\nshall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall\nbow themselves down at the soles of thy feet.\"\n\n[323] Comp. Rom. xiv. 23; Acts xv. 29; Heb. xiii. 9; 1 Cor. viii. 1;\nRev. ii. 14, 20.\n\n[324] So Jerome: \"Non tam Danielem quam in Daniele adorat Deum,\nqui mysteria revelavit.\" Comp. Jos., _Antt._, XI. viii. 5, where\nAlexander answers the taunt of Parmenio about his \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of the\nhigh priest: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n[325] Acts xiv. 14, 15.\n\n[326] Esther iii. 2. Comp. 1 Chron. xxvi. 30. This corresponds to\nwhat Xenophon calls \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, and to our \"right of\n_entr\u00e9e_.\"\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n\n               _THE IDOL OF GOLD, AND THE FAITHFUL THREE_\n\n     \"Every goldsmith is put to shame by his molten image: for his\n     molten image is vanity, and there is no breath in them. They are\n     vanity, a work of delusion: in the time of their visitation they\n     shall perish.\"--JER. li. 17, 18.\n\n     \"The angel of the Lord encampeth around them that fear Him, and\n     shall deliver them.\"--PSALM xxxiv. 7.\n\n     \"When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burnt;\n     neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.\"--ISA. xliii. 2.\n\n\nRegarded as an instance of the use of historic fiction to inculcate\nthe noblest truths, the third chapter of Daniel is not only superb in\nits imaginative grandeur, but still more in the manner in which it\nsets forth the piety of ultimate faithfulness, and of that\n\n            \"Death-defying utterance of truth\"\n\nwhich is the essence of the most heroic and inspiring forms of\nmartyrdom. So far from slighting it, because it does not come before\nus with adequate evidence to prove that it was even intended to\nbe taken as literal history, I have always regarded it as one of\nthe most precious among the narrative chapters of Scripture. It is\nof priceless value as illustrating the deliverance of undaunted\nfaithfulness--as setting forth the truth that they who love God and\ntrust in Him must love Him and trust in Him even till the end, in\nspite not only of the most overwhelming peril, but even when they\nare brought face to face with apparently hopeless defeat. Death\nitself, by torture or sword or flame, threatened by the priests and\ntyrants and multitudes of the earth set in open array against them,\nis impotent to shake the purpose of God's saints. When the servant of\nGod can do nothing else against the banded forces of sin, the world,\nand the devil, he at least can die, and can say like the Maccabees,\n\"Let us die in our simplicity!\" He may be saved from death; but even\nif not, he must prefer death to apostasy, and will save his own\nsoul. That the Jews were ever reduced to such a choice during the\nBabylonian exile there is no evidence; indeed, all evidence points\nthe other way, and seems to show that they were allowed with perfect\ntolerance to hold and practise their own religion.[327] But in the\ndays of Antiochus Epiphanes the question which to choose--martyrdom\nor apostasy--became a very burning one. Antiochus set up at Jerusalem\n\"the abomination of desolation,\" and it is easy to understand what\ncourage and conviction a tempted Jew might derive from the study\nof this splendid defiance. That the story is of a kind well fitted\nto haunt the imagination is shown by the fact that Firdausi tells\na similar story from Persian tradition of \"a martyr hero who came\nunhurt out of a fiery furnace.\"[328]\n\nThis immortal chapter breathes exactly the same spirit as the\nforty-fourth Psalm.\n\n            \"Our heart is not turned back,\n             Neither our steps gone out of Thy way:\n             No, not when Thou hast smitten us into the place of dragons,\n             And covered us with the shadow of death.\n             If we have forgotten the Name of our God,\n             And holden up our hands to any strange god,\n             Shall not God search it out?\n             For He knoweth the very secrets of the heart.\"\n\n\"Nebuchadnezzar the king,\" we are told in one of the stately overtures\nin which this writer rejoices, \"made an image of gold, whose height was\nthreescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits, and he set it up\nin the plains of Dura, in the province of Babylon.\"\n\nNo date is given, but the writer may well have supposed or have\ntraditionally heard that some such event took place about the\neighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar's reign, when he had brought to\nconclusion a series of great victories and conquests.[329] Nor are we\ntold whom the image represented. We may imagine that it was an idol of\nBel-merodach, the patron deity of Babylon, to whom we know that he did\nerect an image;[330] or of Nebo, from whom the king derived his name.\nWhen it is said to be \"of gold,\" the writer, in the grandiose character\nof his imaginative faculty, may have meant his words to be taken\nliterally, or he may merely have meant that it was gilded, or overlaid\nwith gold.[331] There were colossal images in Egypt and in Nineveh,\nbut we never read in history of any other gilded image ninety feet high\nand nine feet broad.[332] The name of the plain or valley in which it\nwas erected--Dura--has been found in several Babylonian localities.[333]\n\nThen the king proclaimed a solemn dedicatory festival, to which he\ninvited every sort of functionary, of which the writer, with his\nusual \u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and rotundity of expression, accumulates the eight\nnames. They were:--\n\n1. The Princes, \"satraps,\" or wardens of the realm.[334]\n\n2. The Governors[335] (ii. 48).\n\n3. The Captains.[336]\n\n4. The Judges.[337]\n\n5. The Treasurers or Controllers.[338]\n\n6. The Counsellors.[339]\n\n7. The Sheriffs.[340]\n\n8. All the Rulers of the Provinces.\n\nAny attempts to attach specific values to these titles are failures.\nThey seem to be a catalogue of Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian\ntitles, and may perhaps (as Ewald conjectured) be meant to represent\nthe various grades of three classes of functionaries--civil,\nmilitary, and legal.\n\nThen all these officials, who with leisurely stateliness are named\nagain, came to the festival, and stood before the image. It is not\nimprobable that the writer may have been a witness of some such\nsplendid ceremony to which the Jewish magnates were invited in the\nreign of Antiochus Epiphanes.[341]\n\nThen a herald (_kerooza_[342]) cried aloud[343] a proclamation \"to\nall peoples, nations, and languages.\" Such a throng might easily have\ncontained Greeks, Ph\u0153nicians, Jews, Arabs, and Assyrians, as well as\nBabylonians. At the outburst of a blast of \"boisterous janizary-music\"\nthey are all to fall down and worship the golden image.\n\nOf the six different kinds of musical instruments, which, in his\nusual style, the writer names and reiterates, and which it is\nneither possible nor very important to distinguish, three--the harp,\npsaltery, and bagpipe--are Greek; two, the horn and sackbut, have\nnames derived from roots found both in Aryan and Semitic languages;\nand one, \"the pipe,\" is Semitic. As to the list of officials, the\nwriter had added \"and all the rulers of the provinces\"; so here he\nadds \"and all kinds of music.\"[344]\n\nAny one who refused to obey the order was to be flung, the same\nhour, into the burning furnace of fire. Professor Sayce, in his\n_Hibbert Lectures_, connects the whole scene with an attempt, first\nby Nebuchadrezzar, then by Nabunaid, to make Merodach--who, to\nconciliate the prejudices of the worshippers of the older deity Bel,\nwas called Bel-merodach--the chief deity of Babylon. He sees in the\nking's proclamation an underlying suspicion that some would be found\nto oppose his attempted centralisation of worship.[345]\n\nThe music burst forth, and the vast throng all prostrated themselves,\nexcept Daniel's three companions, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego.\n\nWe naturally pause to ask where then was Daniel? If the narrative\nbe taken for literal history, it is easy to answer with the\napologist that he was ill; or was absent; or was a person of too\nmuch importance to be required to prostrate himself; or that \"the\nChaldeans\" were afraid to accuse him. \"_Certainly_,\" says Professor\nFuller, \"had this chapter been the composition of a pseudo-Daniel, or\nthe record of a fictitious event, Daniel would have been introduced\nand his immunity explained.\" Apologetic literature abounds in such\nfanciful and valueless arguments. It would be just as true, and just\nas false, to say that \"certainly,\" if the narrative were historic,\nhis absence would have been explained; and all the more because he\nwas expressly elected to be \"in the gate of the king.\" But if we\nregard the chapter as a noble _Haggada_, there is not the least\ndifficulty in accounting for Daniel's absence. The separate stories\nwere meant to cohere to a certain extent; and though the writers of\nthis kind of ancient imaginative literature, even in Greece, rarely\ntrouble themselves with any questions which lie outside the immediate\npurpose, yet the introduction of Daniel into this story would have\nbeen to violate every vestige of verisimilitude. To represent\nNebuchadrezzar worshipping Daniel as a god, and offering oblations to\nhim on one page, and on the next to represent the king as throwing\nhim into a furnace for refusing to worship an idol, would have\ninvolved an obvious incongruity. Daniel is represented in the other\nchapters as playing his part and bearing his testimony to the God of\nIsrael; this chapter is separately devoted to the heroism and the\ntestimony of his three friends.\n\nObserving the defiance of the king's edict, certain Chaldeans, actuated\nby jealousy, came near to the king and \"accused\" the Jews.[346]\n\nThe word for \"accused\" is curious and interesting. It is literally\n\"_ate the pieces of the Jews_,\"[347] evidently involving a metaphor\nof fierce devouring malice.[348] Reminding the king of his decree,\nthey inform him that three of the Jews to whom he has given such high\npromotion \"thought well not to regard thee; thy god will they not\nserve, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.\"[349]\n\nNebuchadrezzar, like other despots who suffer from the vertigo of\nautocracy, was liable to sudden outbursts of almost spasmodic fury.\nWe read of such storms of rage in the case of Antiochus Epiphanes, of\nNero, of Valentinian I., and even of Theodosius. The double insult to\nhimself and to his god on the part of men to whom he had shown such\nconspicuous favour transported him out of himself. For Bel-merodach,\nwhom he had made the patron god of Babylon, was, as he says in one\nof his own inscriptions, \"the Lord, the joy of my heart in Babylon,\nwhich is the seat of my sovereignty and empire.\" It seemed to him\ntoo intolerable that this god, who had crowned him with glory and\nvictory, and that he himself, arrayed in the plenitude of his\nimperial power, should be defied and set at naught by three miserable\nand ungrateful captives.\n\nHe puts it to them whether it was their set purpose[350] that they\nwould not serve his gods or worship his image. Then he offers them a\n_locus p\u0153nitenti\u00e6_. The music should sound forth again. If they would\nthen worship--but if not, they should be flung into the furnace,--\"and\nwho is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?\"\n\nThe question is a direct challenge and defiance of the God of Israel,\nlike Pharaoh's \"And who is Jehovah, that I should obey His voice?\"\nor like Sennacherib's \"Who are they among all the gods that have\ndelivered their land out of my hand?\"[351] It is answered in each\ninstance by a decisive interposition.\n\nThe answer of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego is truly magnificent\nin its unflinching courage. It is: \"O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need\nto answer thee a word concerning this.[352] If our God whom we serve\nbe able to deliver us, He will deliver us from the burning fiery\nfurnace, and out of thy hand, O king. But if not,[353] be it known\nunto thee, O king,[354] that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship\nthe golden image which thou hast set up.\"\n\nBy the phrase \"if our God be able\" no doubt as to God's _power_ is\nexpressed. The word \"able\" merely means \"able in accordance with His\nown plans.\"[355] The three children knew well that God can deliver, and\nthat He has repeatedly delivered His saints. Such deliverances abound\non the sacred page, and are mentioned in the Dream of Gerontius:--\n\n            \"Rescue him, O Lord, in this his evil hour,\n             As of old so many by Thy mighty power:--\n             Enoch and Elias from the common doom;\n             Noe from the waters in a saving home;\n             Abraham from th' abounding guilt of Heathenesse,\n             Job from all his multiform and fell distress;\n             Isaac, when his father's knife was raised to slay;\n             Lot from burning Sodom on its judgment-day;\n             Moses from the land of bondage and despair;\n             Daniel from the hungry lions in their lair;\n             David from Golia, and the wrath of Saul;\n             And the two Apostles from their prison-thrall.\"\n\nBut the willing martyrs were also well aware that in many cases it\nhas _not_ been God's purpose to deliver His saints out of the peril\nof death; and that it has been far better for them that they should\nbe carried heavenwards on the fiery chariot of martyrdom. They were\ntherefore perfectly prepared to find that it was the will of God\nthat they too should perish, as thousands of God's faithful ones had\nperished before them, from the tyrannous and cruel hands of man; and\nthey were cheerfully willing to confront that awful extremity. Thus\nregarded, the three words \"_And if not_\" are among the sublimest\nwords uttered in all Scripture. They represent the truth that\nthe man who trusts in God will continue to say even to the end,\n\"Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him.\" They are the triumph\nof faith over all adverse circumstances. It has been the glorious\nachievement of man to have attained, by the inspiration of the\nbreath of the Almighty, so clear an insight into the truth that the\nvoice of duty must be obeyed to the very end, as to lead him to defy\nevery combination of opposing forces. The gay lyrist of heathendom\nexpressed it in his famous ode,--\n\n            \"Justum et tenacem propositi virum\n             Non civium ardor prava jubentium\n               Non vultus instantis tyranni\n                 Mente quatit solid\u00e2.\"\n\nIt is man's testimony to his indomitable belief that the things of\nsense are not to be valued in comparison to that high happiness which\narises from obedience to the law of conscience, and that no extremities\nof agony are commensurate with apostasy. This it is which, more than\nanything else, has, in spite of appearances, shown that the spirit of\nman is of heavenly birth, and has enabled him to unfold\n\n            \"The wings within him wrapped, and proudly rise\n             Redeemed from earth, a creature of the skies.\"\n\nFor wherever there is left in man any true manhood, he has never\nshrunk from accepting death rather than the disgrace of compliance\nwith what he despises and abhors. This it is which sends our soldiers\non the forlorn hope, and makes them march with a smile upon the\nbatteries which vomit their cross-fires upon them; \"and so die by\nthousands the unnamed demigods.\" By virtue of this it has been\nthat all the martyrs have, \"with the irresistible might of their\nweakness,\" shaken the solid world.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOn hearing the defiance of the faithful Jews--absolutely firm in its\ndecisiveness, yet perfectly respectful in its tone--the tyrant was\nso much beside himself, that, as he glared on Shadrach, Meshach,\nand Abed-nego, his very countenance was disfigured. The furnace was\nprobably one used for the ordinary cremation of the dead.[356] He\nordered that it should be heated seven times hotter than it was\nwont to be heated,[357] and certain men of mighty strength who were\nin his army were bidden to bind the three youths and fling them into\nthe raging flames. So, bound in their hosen, their tunics, their\nlong mantles,[358] and their other garments, they were cast into the\nseven-times-heated furnace. The king's commandment was so urgent, and\nthe \"tongue of flame\" was darting so fiercely from the horrible kiln,\nthat the executioners perished in planting the ladders to throw them\nin, but they themselves fell into the midst of the furnace.\n\nThe death of the executioners seems to have attracted no\nspecial notice, but immediately afterwards Nebuchadrezzar\nstarted in amazement and terror from his throne, and asked his\nchamberlains,[359] \"Did we not cast _three_ men _bound_ into the\nmidst of the fire?\"\n\n\"True, O king,\" they answered.\n\n\"Behold,\" he said, \"I see _four_ men _loose_, walking in the midst of\nthe fire, and they have no hurt, and the aspect of the fourth is like\na son of the gods!\"[360]\n\nThen the king approached the door of the furnace of fire, and\ncalled, \"Ye servants of the Most High God,[361] come forth.\" Then\nShadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego came out of the midst of the fire;\nand all the satraps, prefects, presidents, and court chamberlains\ngathered round to stare on men who were so completely untouched by\nthe fierceness of the flames that not a hair of their heads had been\nsinged, nor their hosen shrivelled, nor was there even the smell\nof burning upon them.[362] According to the version of Theodotion,\nthe king worshipped the Lord before them, and he then published a\ndecree in which, after blessing God for sending His angel to deliver\nHis servants who trusted in Him, he somewhat incoherently ordained\nthat \"every _people, nation, or language_ which spoke any blasphemy\nagainst the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, should _be cut\nin pieces_, and _his house made a dunghill_: since there is no other\ngod that can deliver after this sort.\"\n\nThen the king--as he had done before--promoted Shadrach, Meshach,\nand Abed-nego in the province of Babylon.[363]\n\nHenceforth they disappear alike from history, tradition, and legend;\nbut the whole magnificent _Haggada_ is the most powerful possible\ncommentary on the words of Isa. xliii. 2: \"When thou walkest through\nthe fire thou shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle\nupon thee.\"[364]\n\nHow powerfully the story struck the imagination of the Jews is shown\nby the not very apposite Song of the Three Children, with the other\napocryphal additions. Here we are told that the furnace was heated\n\"with rosin, pitch, tow, and small wood; so that the flame streamed\nforth above the furnace forty and nine cubits. And it passed through,\nand burned those Chaldeans it found about the furnace. But the angel\nof the Lord came down into the furnace together with Azarias and his\nfellows, and smote the flame of the fire out of the oven; and made\nthe midst of the furnace as it had been a moist whistling wind,[365]\nso that the fire touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled\nthem.\"[366]\n\nIn the Talmud the majestic limitations of the Biblical story are\nsometimes enriched with touches of imagination, but more often\ncoarsened by tasteless exhibitions of triviality and rancour. Thus in\nthe _Vayyikra Rabba_ Nebuchadrezzar tries to persuade the youths by\nfantastic misquotations of Isa. x. 10, Ezek. xxiii. 14, Deut. iv. 28,\nJer. xxvii. 8; and they refute him and end with clumsy plays on his\nname, telling him that he should bark (_nabach_) like a dog, swell like\na water-jar (_cod_), and chirp like a cricket (_tsirtsir_), which he\nimmediately did--_i.e._, he was smitten with lycanthropy.[367]\n\nIn _Sanhedrin_, f. 93, 1, the story is told of the adulterous false\nprophets Ahab and Zedekiah, and it is added that Nebuchadrezzar\noffered them the ordeal of fire from which the Three Children had\nescaped. They asked that Joshua the high priest might be with them,\nthinking that his sanctity would be their protection. When the king\nasked why Abraham, though alone, had been saved from the fire of\nNimrod, and the Three Children from the burning furnace, and yet the\nhigh priest should have been singed (Zech. iii. 2), Joshua answered\nthat the presence of two wicked men gave the fire power over him, and\nquoted the proverb, \"Two dry sticks kindle one green one.\"\n\nIn _Pesachin_, f. 118, 1, there is a fine imaginative passage on the\nsubject, attributed to Rabbi Samuel of Shiloh:--\n\n\"In the hour when Nebuchadrezzar the wicked threw Hananiah, Mishael and\nAzariah into the midst of the furnace of fire, Gorgemi, the prince of\nthe hail, stood before the Holy One (blessed be He!) and said, 'Lord\nof the world, let me go down and cool the furnace.' 'No,' answered\nGabriel; 'all men know that hail quenches fire;[368] but I, the prince\nof fire, will go down and make the furnace cool within and hot without,\nand thus work a miracle within a miracle.' The Holy One (blessed be\nHe!) said unto him, 'Go down.' In the self-same hour Gabriel opened his\nmouth and said, 'And the truth of the Lord endureth for ever.'\"\n\nMr. Ball, who quotes these passages from W\u00fcnsche's _Bibliotheca\nRabbinica_ in his Introduction to the Song of the Three\nChildren,[369] very truly adds that many Scriptural commentators\nwholly lack the _orientation_ derived from the study of Talmudic and\nMidrashic literature which is an indispensable preliminary to a right\nunderstanding of the treasures of Eastern thought. They do not grasp\nthe inveterate tendency of Jewish teachers to convey doctrine by\nconcrete stories and illustrations, and not in the form of abstract\nthought. \"_The doctrine is everything; the mode of presentation has\nno independent value._\" To make the story the first consideration,\nand the doctrine it was intended to convey an after-thought, as we,\nwith our dry Western literalness are predisposed to do, is to reverse\nthe Jewish order of thinking, and to inflict unconscious injustice on\nthe authors of many edifying narratives of antiquity.\n\nThe part played by Daniel in the apocryphal Story of Susanna is\nprobably suggested by the meaning of his name: \"Judgment of God.\"\nBoth that story and Bel and the Dragon are in their way effective\nfictions, though incomparably inferior to the canonical part of the\nBook of Daniel.\n\nAnd the startling decree of Nebuchadrezzar finds its analogy in\nthe decree published by Antiochus the Great to all his subjects\nin honour of the Temple at Jerusalem, in which he threatened the\ninfliction of heavy fines on any foreigner who trespassed within the\nlimits of the Holy Court.[370]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[327] The false prophets Ahab and Zedekiah were \"roasted in the fire\"\n(Jer. xxix. 22), which may have suggested the idea of this punishment\nto the writer; but it was for committing \"lewdness\"--\"folly,\" Judg.\nxx. 6--in Israel, and for adultery and lies, which were regarded as\ntreasonable. In some traditions they are identified with the two\nelders of the Story of Susanna. Assur-bani-pal burnt Samas-sum-ucin,\nhis brother, who was Viceroy of Babylon (about B.C. 648), and\nTe-Umman, who cursed his gods (Smith, _Assur-bani-pal_, p. 138).\nComp. Ewald, _Prophets_, iii. 240. See _supra_, p. 44.\n\n[328] Malcolm, _Persia_, i. 29, 30.\n\n[329] Both in Theodotion and the LXX. we have \u1f14\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\nThe siege of Jerusalem was not, however, finished till the nineteenth\nyear of Nebuchadrezzar (2 Kings xxv. 8). Others conjecture that the\nscene occurred in his thirty-first year, when he was \"at rest in his\nhouse, and flourishing in his palace\" (Dan. iv. 4).\n\n[330] _Records of the Past_, v. 113. The inscriptions of\nNebuchadrezzar are full of glorification of Marduk (Merodach), _id._,\nv. 115, 135, vii. 75.\n\n[331] Comp. Isa. xliv. 9-20. Mr. Hormuzd Rassan discovered a colossal\nstatue of Nebo at Nimroud in 1853. Shalmanezer III. says on his\nobelisk, \"I made an image of my royalty; upon it I inscribed the\npraise of Asshur my master, and a true account of my exploits.\"\nHerodotus (i. 183) mentions a statue of Zeus in Babylon, on which was\nspent eight hundred talents of gold, and of another made of \"solid\ngold\" twelve ells high.\n\n[332] By the apologists the \"image\" or \"statue\" is easily toned\ndown into a bust on a hollow pedestal (Archdeacon Rose, _Speaker's\nCommentary_, p. 270). The colossus of Nero is said to have been a\nhundred and ten feet high, but was of marble. Nestle (_Marginalia_,\n35) quotes a passage from Ammianus Marcellinus, which mentions a\ncolossal statue of Apollo reared by Antiochus Epiphanes, to which\nthere may be a side-allusion here.\n\n[333] Schrader, p. 430: Dur-Yagina, Dur-Sargina, etc. LXX., \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u1ff3\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[334] LXX. and Vulg., _satrap\u00e6_. Comp. Ezra viii. 36; Esther iii. 12.\nSupposed to be the Persian _Khshatra-p\u0101wan_ (Bevan, p. 79).\n\n[335] _Sign\u00ee_, Babylonian word (Schrader, p. 411).\n\n[336] LXX., \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9. Comp. _Pechah_, Ezra v. 14. An Assyrian word\n(Schrader, p. 577).\n\n[337] LXX., \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. Perhaps the Persian _endarzgar_, or \"counsellor.\"\n\n[338] LXX., \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03af. Comp. Ezra vii. 21; but Gr\u00e4tz thinks there is\na mere scribe's mistake for the _gadbar\u00ee_ of vv. 24 and 27.\n\n[339] This word is perhaps the old Persian _d\u00e0tabard_.\n\n[340] The word is found here alone. Perhaps \"advisers.\" On these\nwords see Bevan, p. 79; _Speaker's Commentary_, pp. 278, 279; Sayce,\n_Assyr. Gr._, p. 110.\n\n[341] Ewald, _Prophets_, v. 209; _Hist._, v. 294.\n\n[342] The word has often been compared with the Greek \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03be, but the\nroot is freely found in Assyrian inscriptions (_Karaz_, \"an edict\").\n\n[343] Comp. Rev. xviii. 2, \u1f14\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03ca.\n\n[344] See _supra_, p. 22. The _qar'na_ (horn, \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2) and _sab'ka_\n(\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03cd\u03ba\u03b7) are in root both Greek and Aramean. The \"pipe\"\n(_mash'r\u00f4k\u00eetha_) is Semitic. Brandig tries to prove that even in\nNebuchadrezzar's time these three Greek names (even the _symphonia_)\nhad been borrowed by the Babylonians from the Greeks; but the\ncombined weight of philological authority is against him.\n\n[345] See _Hibbert Lectures_, chap. lxxxix., etc.\n\n[346] Comp. vi. 13, 14.\n\n[347] _Akaloo Qar'ts\u00eeh\u00een._\n\n[348] It is \"found in the Targum rendering of Lev. xix. 16 for a\ntalebearer, and is frequent as a Syriac and Arabic idiom\" (Fuller).\n\n[349] Jerome emphasises the element of jealousy, \"Quos pr\u00e6tulisti\nnobis et _captivos ac servos principes fecisti_, ii _elati in\nsuperbiam_ tua pr\u00e6cepta contemnunt.\"\n\n[350] The phrase is unique and of uncertain meaning.\n\n[351] Exod. v. 2; Isa. xxxvi. 20; 2 Chron. xxxii. 13-17.\n\n[352] Dan. iii. 16. LXX., \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd; Vulg., _non oportet\nnos_. To soften the brusqueness of the address, in which the Rabbis\n(_e.g._, Rashi) rejoice, the LXX. add another \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6.\n\n[353] Jerome explains \"But if not\" by _Quodsi noluerit_; and\nTheodoret by \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1fe5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ae.\n\n[354] iii. 18. LXX., \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Tert., from the Vet.\nItala, \"tunc manifestum erit tibi\" (_Scorp._, 8).\n\n[355] Comp. Gen. xix. 22: \"_I cannot do anything_ until thou be come\nthither.\"\n\n[356] Cremation prevailed among the Accadians, and was adopted by the\nBabylonians (G. Bertin, _Bab. and Orient. Records_, i. 17-21). Fire\nwas regarded as the great purifier. In the Catacombs the scene of the\nThree Children in the fire is common. They are painted walking in a\nsort of open cistern full of flames, with doors beneath. The Greek\nword is \u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (Matt. xiii. 42), \"a calcining furnace.\"\n\n[357] It seems very needless to introduce here, as Mr. Deane does in\nBishop Ellicott's commentary, the notion of the seven _Mask\u00eem_ or\ndemons of Babylonian mythology. In the Song of the Three Children the\nflames stream out forty-nine (7 \u00d7 7) cubits. Comp. Isa. xxx. 26.\n\n[358] The meaning of these articles of dress is only conjectural:\nthey are--(1) _Sarb\u0101l\u00een_, perhaps \"trousers,\" LXX. \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, Vulg.\n_bracc\u00e6_; (2) _Pat\u00eesh_, LXX. \u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, Vulg. _tiar\u00e6_; (3) _Kar'bla_,\nLXX. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, Vulg. _calceamenta_. It is useless to repeat all\nthe guesses. _Sarbala_ is a \"tunic\" in the Talmud, Arab. _sirbal_;\nand some connect _Pat\u00eesh_ with the Greek \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2. Judging from\nAssyrian and Babylonian dress as represented on the monuments, the\nyouths were probably clad in turbans (the Median \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7), an inner\ntunic (the Median \u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03c2), an outer mantle, and some sort of leggings\n(_anaxurides_). It is interesting to compare with the passage the\nchapter of Herodotus (i. 190) about the Babylonian dress. He says\nthey wore a linen tunic reaching to the feet, a woollen over-tunic, a\nwhite shawl, and slippers. It was said to be borrowed from the dress\nof Semiramis.\n\n[359] Chald., _haddab'r\u00een_; LXX., \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n[360] The A.V., \"like the Son of God,\" is quite untenable. The\nexpression may mean a heavenly or an angelic being (Gen. vi. 2; Job\ni. 6). So ordinary an expression does not need to be superfluously\nillustrated by references to the Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions,\nbut they may be found in Sayce, _Hibbert Lectures_, 128 and _passim_.\n\n[361] LXX., \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f41 \u1f55\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Comp. 2 Macc. iii. 31; Mark\nv. 7; Luke viii. 28; Acts xvi. 17, from which it will be seen that it\nwas not a Jewish expression, though it often occurs in the Book of\nEnoch (Dillmann, p. 98).\n\n[362] So in Persian history the Prince Siawash clears himself from\na false accusation in the reign of his father Kai Kaoos by passing\nthrough the fire (Malcolm, _Hist. of Persia_, i. 38).\n\n[363] Comp. Psalm xvi. 12: \"We went through fire and water, and Thou\nbroughtest us out into a safe place.\"\n\n[364] Comp. Gen. xxiv. 7; Exod. xxiii. 20; Deut. xxxvi. 1. The phrase\napplied to Joshua the high priest (Zech. iii. 2), \"Is not this a\nbrand plucked out of the burning?\" originated the legend that, when\nthe false prophets Ahab and Zedekiah had been burnt by Nebuchadrezzar\n(Jer. xxix. 22), Joshua had been saved, though singed. This and other\napocryphal stories illustrate the evolution of _Haggadoth_ out of\nmetaphoric allusions.\n\n[365] \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd, \"a dewy wind, whistling continually.\"\n\n[366] Song of the Three Children, 23-27.\n\n[367] _Vay. Rab._, xxv. 1 (W\u00fcnsche, _Bibliotheca Rabbinica_).\n\n[368] Ecclus. xviii. 16: \"Shall not the dew assuage the heat?\"\n\n[369] _Speaker's Commentary_, on the Apocrypha, ii. 305-307.\n\n[370] Jos., _Antt._, XII. iii. 3; Jahn, _Hebr. Commonwealth_, \u00a7 xc.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n\n                _THE BABYLONIAN CEDAR, AND THE STRICKEN\n                                DESPOT_\n\n     \"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a\n     fall.\"--PROV. xvi. 18.\n\n\nThrice already, in these magnificent stories, had Nebuchadrezzar been\ntaught to recognise the existence and to reverence the power of God.\nIn this chapter he is represented as having been brought to a still\nmore overwhelming conviction, and to an open acknowledgment of God's\nsupremacy, by the lightning-stroke of terrible calamity.\n\nThe chapter is dramatically thrown into the form of a decree\nwhich, after his recovery and shortly before his death, the king\nis represented as having promulgated to \"all people, nations, and\nlanguages that dwell in all the earth.\"[371] But the literary form is\nso absolutely subordinated to the general purpose--which is to show\nthat where God's \"judgments are in the earth the inhabitants of the\nearth will learn righteousness,\"[372]--that the writer passes without\nany difficulty from the first to the third person (iv. 20-30). He\ndoes not hesitate to represent Nebuchadrezzar as addressing all the\nsubject nations in favour of the God of Israel, even placing in his\nimperial decree a cento of Scriptural phraseology.\n\nReaders unbiassed by _a-priori_ assumptions, which are broken to\npieces at every step, will ask, \"Is it even historically conceivable\nthat Nebuchadrezzar (to whom the later Jews commonly gave the title of\n_Ha-Rashang_, 'the wicked') could ever have issued such a decree?\"[373]\nThey will further ask, \"Is there any shadow of evidence to show that\nthe king's degrading madness and recovery rest upon any real tradition?\"\n\nAs to the monuments and inscriptions, they are entirely silent upon\nthe subject; nor is there any trace of these events in any historic\nrecord. Those who, with the school of Hengstenberg and Pusey, think\nthat the narrative receives support from the phrase of Berossus that\nNebuchadrezzar \"fell sick and departed this life when he had reigned\nforty-three years,\" must be easily satisfied, since he says very\nnearly the same of Nabopolassar.[374] Such writers too much assume\nthat immemorial prejudices on the subject have so completely weakened\nthe independent intelligence of their readers, that they may safely\nmake assertions which, in matters of secular criticism, would be set\naside as almost childishly nugatory.\n\nIt is different with the testimony of Abydenus, quoted by\nEusebius.[375] Abydenus, in his book on the _Assyrians_, quoted from\nMegasthenes the story that, after great conquests, \"Nebuchadrezzar\"\n(as the Chaldean story goes), \"_when he had ascended the roof of his\npalace, was inspired by some god or other_, and cried aloud, 'I,\nNebuchadrezzar, announce to you the future calamity which neither Bel\nmy ancestor, nor our queen Beltis, can persuade the Fates to avert.\nThere shall come a Persian, a mule, who shall have your own gods as\nhis allies, and he shall make you slaves. Moreover, he who shall help\nto bring this about shall be the son of a Median woman, the boast of\nthe Assyrian. Would that before his countrymen perish some whirlpool\nor flood might seize him and destroy him utterly;[376] or else would\nthat he might betake himself to some other place, and _might be\ndriven to the desert, where is no city nor track of men, where wild\nbeasts seek their food and birds fly hither and thither! Would that\namong rocks and mountain clefts he might wander alone!_ And as for\nme, may I, before he imagines this, meet with some happier end!'\n_When he had thus prophesied, he suddenly vanished._\"\n\nI have italicised the passages which, amid immense differences, bear\na remote analogy to the story of this chapter. To quote the passage\nas any proof that the writer of Daniel is narrating literal history\nis an extraordinary misuse of it.\n\nMegasthenes flourished B.C. 323, and wrote a book which contained\nmany fabulous stories, three centuries after the events to which\nhe alludes. Abydenus, author of _Assyriaca_, was a Greek historian\nof still later, and uncertain, date. The writer of Daniel may have\nmet with their works, or, quite independently of them, he may have\nlearned from the Babylonian Jews that there was _some_ strange legend\nor other about the death of Nebuchadrezzar. The Jews in Babylonia\nwere more numerous and more distinguished than those in Palestine,\nand kept up constant communication with them. So far from any\nhistorical accuracy about Babylon in a Palestinian Jew of the age\nof the Maccabees being strange, or furnishing any proof that he was\na contemporary of Nebuchadrezzar, the only subject of astonishment\nwould be that he should have fallen into so many mistakes and\ninaccuracies, were it not that the ancients in general, and the Jews\nparticularly, paid little attention to such matters.\n\nAware, then, of some dim traditions that Nebuchadrezzar at the close\nof his life ascended his palace roof and there received some sort of\ninspiration, after which he mysteriously disappeared, the writer,\ngiving free play to his imagination for didactic purposes, after the\ncommon fashion of his age and nation, worked up these slight elements\ninto the stately and striking _Midrash_ of this chapter. He too makes\nthe king mount his palace roof and receive an inspiration; but in his\npages the inspiration does not refer to \"the mule\" or half-breed,\nCyrus, nor to Nabunaid, the son of a Median woman, nor to any\nimprecation pronounced upon them, but is an admonition to himself;\nand the imprecation which he denounced upon the future subverters of\nBabylon is dimly analogous to the fate which fell on his own head.\nInstead of making him \"vanish\" immediately afterwards, the writer\nmakes him fall into a beast-madness for \"seven times,\" after which\nhe suddenly recovers and publishes a decree that all mankind should\nhonour the true God.\n\nEwald thinks that a verse has been lost at the beginning of the\nchapter, indicating the nature of the document which follows; but it\nseems more probable that the author began this, as he begins other\nchapters, with the sort of imposing overture of the first verse.\n\nLike Assur-bani-pal and the ancient despots, Nebuchadrezzar addresses\nhimself to \"all people in the earth,\" and after the salutation of\npeace[377] says that he thought it right to tell them \"the signs and\nwonders that the High God hath wrought towards me. How great are His\nsigns, and how mighty are His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting\nkingdom, and His dominion is from generation to generation.\"[378]\n\nHe goes on to relate that, while he was at ease and secure in his\npalace,[379] he saw a dream which affrighted him, and left a train\nof gloomy forebodings. As usual he summoned the whole train of\n_Khakham\u00eem_, _Ashshaph\u00eem_, _Mekashshaph\u00eem_, _Kasd\u00eem_, _Chartumm\u00eem_,\nand _Gazer\u00eem_, to interpret his dream, and as usual they failed\nto do so. Then lastly, Daniel, surnamed Belteshazzar, after Bel,\nNebuchradrezzar's god,[380] and \"chief of the magicians,\"[381] in\nwhom was \"the spirit of the holy gods,\" is summoned. To him the king\ntells his dream.\n\nThe writer probably derives the images of the dream from the\nmagnificent description of the King of Assyria as a spreading cedar\nin Ezek. xxxi. 3-18:--\n\n\"Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and\nwith a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was\namong the thick boughs. The waters nourished him, the deep made him\nto grow.... Therefore his stature was exalted above all the trees of\nthe field; and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became\nlong by reason of many waters. All the fowls of the air made their\nnests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of\nthe field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all\ngreat nations.... The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him\n... nor was any tree in the garden of God like him in his beauty....\nTherefore thus saith the Lord God: Because thou art exalted in\nstature ... I will deliver him into the hand of the mighty one of the\nnations.... And strangers, the terrible of the nations, have cut him\noff, and have left him. Upon the mountains and in all the valleys his\nbranches are broken ... and all the people of the earth are gone down\nfrom his shadow, and have left him.... I made the nations to shake at\nthe sound of his fall.\"\n\nWe may also compare this dream with that of Cambyses narrated by\nHerodotus[382]: \"He fancied that a vine grew from the womb of\nhis daughter and overshadowed the whole of Asia.... The magian\ninterpreter expounded the vision to foreshow that the offspring of\nhis daughter would reign over Asia in his stead.\"\n\nSo too Nebuchadrezzar in his dream had seen a tree in the midst\nof the earth, of stately height, which reached to heaven and\novershadowed the world, with fair leaves and abundant fruit,\ngiving large nourishment to all mankind, and shade to the beasts\nof the field and fowls of the heaven. The LXX. adds with glowing\nexaggeration, \"The sun and moon dwelled in it, and gave light to\nthe whole earth. And, behold, a watcher [_'\u00eer_][383] and a holy one\n[_qadd\u00eesh_][384] came down from heaven, and bade, Hew down, and lop,\nand strip the tree, and scatter his fruit, and scare away the beasts\nand birds from it, but leave the stump in the greening turf bound by\na band of brass and iron, and let it be wet with heaven's dews,\"--and\nthen, passing from the image to the thing signified, \"and let his\nportion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth. Let his heart\nbe changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him, and\nlet seven times pass over him.\" We are not told to whom the mandate\nis given--that is left magnificently vague. The object of this\n\"sentence of the watchers, and utterance of the holy ones,\" is that\nthe living may know that the Most High is the Supreme King, and can,\nif He will, give rule even to the lowliest. Nebuchadrezzar, who tells\nus in his inscription that \"he never forgave impiety,\" has to learn\nthat he is nothing, and that God is all,--that \"He pulleth down the\nmighty from their seat, and exalteth the humble and meek.\"[385]\n\nThis dream Nebuchadrezzar bids Daniel to interpret, \"because thou\nhast the spirit of a Holy God in thee.\"\n\nBefore we proceed let us pause for a moment to notice the agents of\nthe doom. It is one of the never-sleeping ones--an _'\u00eer_ and a holy\none--who flashes down from heaven with the mandate; and he is only\nthe mouthpiece of the whole body of the watchers and holy ones.\n\nGenerally, no doubt, the phrase means an angelic denizen of heaven.\nThe LXX. translates watcher by \"angel.\" Theodotion, feeling that\nthere is something technical in the word, which only occurs in this\nchapter, renders it by \u03b5\u1f34\u03c1. This is the first appearance of the term\nin Jewish literature, but it becomes extremely common in later Jewish\nwritings--as, for instance, in the Book of Enoch. The term \"a holy\none\"[386] connotes the dedicated separation of the angels; for in the\nOld Testament holiness is used to express consecration and setting\napart, rather than moral stainlessness.[387] The \"seven watchers\"\nare alluded to in the post-exilic Zechariah (iv. 10): \"They see with\njoy the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel, even those seven, the\n_eyes_ of the Lord; they run to and fro through the whole earth.\"\nIn this verse Kohut[388] and Kuenen read \"watchers\" (_'\u00eer\u00eem_) for\n\"eyes\" (_'\u00een\u00eem_), and we find these seven watchers in the Book of\nEnoch (chap. xx.). We see as an historic fact that the familiarity\nof the Jews with Persian angelology and demonology seems to have\ndeveloped their views on the subject. It is only after the Exile\nthat we find angels and demons playing a more prominent part than\nbefore, divided into classes, and even marked out by special names.\nThe Apocrypha becomes more precise than the canonical books, and the\nlater pseudepigraphic books, which advance still further, are left\nbehind by the Talmud. Some have supposed a connexion between the\nseven watchers and the Persian _amschashpands_.[389] The _shed\u00eem_, or\nevil spirits, are also seven in number,--\n\n            \"Seven are they, seven are they!\n             In the channel of the deep seven are they,\n             In the radiance of heaven seven are they!\"[390]\n\nIt is true that in Enoch (xc. 91) the prophet sees \"the first six\nwhite ones,\" and we find six also in Ezek. ix. 2. On the other hand,\nwe find seven in Tobit: \"I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels\nwhich present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out\nbefore the glory of the Holy One.\"[391] The names are variously\ngiven; but perhaps the commonest are Michael, Gabriel, Uriel,\nRaphael, and Raguel.[392] In the Babylonian mythology seven deities\nstood at the head of all Divine beings, and the seven planetary\nspirits watched the gates of Hades.[393]\n\nTo Daniel, when he had heard the dream, it seemed so full of\nportentous omen that \"he was astonished for one hour.\"[394] Seeing\nhis agitation, the king bids him take courage and fearlessly\ninterpret the dream. But it is an augury of fearful visitation; so\nhe begins with a formula intended as it were to avert the threatened\nconsequences. \"My Lord,\" he exclaimed, on recovering voice, \"the\ndream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation to thine\nenemies.\"[395] The king would regard it as a sort of appeal to the\naverting deities (the Roman _D\u00ee Averrunci_), and as analogous to the\ncurrent formula of his hymns, \"From the noxious spirit may the King\nof heaven and the king of earth preserve thee!\"[396] He then proceeds\nto tell the king that the fair, stately, sheltering tree--\"it is\nthou, O king\"; and the interpretation of the doom pronounced upon\nit is that he should be driven from men, and should dwell with the\nbeasts of the field, and be reduced to eat grass like the oxen, and\nbe wet with the dew of heaven, \"and seven times shall pass over thee,\ntill thou shalt know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men,\nand giveth it to whomsoever He will.\" But as the stump of the tree\nwas to be left in the fresh green grass, so the kingdom should be\nrestored to him when he had learnt that the Heavens do rule.\n\nThe only feature of the dream which is left uninterpreted is the\nbinding of the stump with bands of iron and brass. Most commentators\nfollow Jerome in making it refer to the fetters with which maniacs\nare bound,[397] but there is no evidence that Nebuchadrezzar was\nso restrained, and the bands round the stump are for its protection\nfrom injury. This seems preferable to the view which explains them\nas \"the stern and crushing sentence under which the king is to\nlie.\"[398] Josephus and the Jewish exegetes take the \"seven times\" to\nbe \"seven years\"; but the phrase is vague, and the event is evidently\nrepresented as taking place at the close of the king's reign. Instead\nof using the awful name of Jehovah, the prophet uses the distant\nperiphrasis of \"the Heavens.\" It was a phrase which became common in\nlater Jewish literature, and a Babylonian king would be familiar with\nit; for in the inscriptions we find Maruduk addressed as the \"great\nHeavens,\" the father of the gods.[399]\n\nHaving faithfully interpreted the fearful warning of the dream,\nDaniel points out that the menaces of doom are sometimes conditional,\nand may be averted or delayed. \"Wherefore,\" he says, \"O king, let\nmy counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by\nrighteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if\nso be there may be a healing of thy error.\"[400]\n\nThis pious exhortation of Daniel has been severely criticised from\nopposite directions.\n\nThe Jewish Rabbis, in the very spirit of bigotry and false\nreligion, said that Daniel was subsequently thrown into the den\nof lions to punish him for the crime of tendering good advice to\nNebuchadrezzar;[401] and, moreover, the advice could not be of any\nreal use; \"for even if the nations of the world do righteousness and\nmercy to prolong their dominion, it is only sin to them.\"[402]\n\nOn the other hand, the Roman Catholics have made it their chief\nsupport for the doctrine of good works, which is so severely\ncondemned in the twelfth of our Articles.\n\nProbably no such theological questions remotely entered into the\nmind of the writer. Perhaps the words should be rendered \"break\noff thy sins by righteousness,\" rather than (as Theodotion renders\nthem) \"redeem thy sins by almsgiving.\"[403] It is, however, certain\nthat among the Pharisees and the later Rabbis there was a grievous\nlimitation of the sense of the word _tzedakah_, \"righteousness,\"\nto mean merely almsgiving. In Matt. vi. 1 it is well known\nthat the reading \"alms\" (\u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd) has in the received text\ndisplaced the reading \"righteousness\" (\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd); and in the\nTalmud \"righteousness\"--like our shrunken misuse of the word\n\"charity\"--means almsgiving. The value of \"alms\" has often been\nextravagantly exalted. Thus we read: \"Whoever shears his substance\nfor the poor escapes the condemnation of hell\" (_Nedar\u00eem_, f. 22, 1).\n\nIn _Baba Bathra_, f. 10, 1, and _Rosh Hashanah_, f. 16, 2, we have\n\"_alms_ delivereth from death,\" as a gloss on the meaning of Prov.\nxi. 4.[404]\n\nWe cannot tell that the writer shared these views. He probably meant\nno more than that cruelty and injustice were the chief vices of\ndespots, and that the only way to avert a threatened calamity was by\nrepenting of them. The necessity for compassion in the abstract was\nrecognised even by the most brutal Assyrian kings.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe are next told the fulfilment of the dark dream. The interpretation\nhad been meant to warn the king; but the warning was soon forgotten\nby one arrayed in such absolutism of imperial power. The intoxication\nof pride had become habitual in his heart, and twelve months sufficed\nto obliterate all solemn thoughts. The Septuagint adds that \"he kept\nthe words in his heart\"; but the absence of any mention of rewards or\nhonours paid to Daniel is perhaps a sign that he was rather offended\nthan impressed.\n\nA year later he was walking on the flat roof of the great palace of\nthe kingdom of Babylon. The sight of that golden city in the zenith\nof its splendour may well have dazzled the soul of its founder. He\ntells us in an inscription that he regarded that city as the apple\nof his eye, and that the palace was its most glorious ornament.[405]\nIt was in the centre of the whole country; it covered a vast space,\nand was visible far and wide. It was built of brick and bitumen,\nenriched with cedar and iron, decorated with inscriptions and\npaintings. The tower \"contained the treasures of my imperishable\nroyalty; and silver, gold, metals, gems, nameless and priceless, and\nimmense treasures of rare value,\" had been lavished upon it. Begun\n\"in a happy month, and on an auspicious day,\" it had been finished\nin fifteen days by armies of slaves. This palace and its celebrated\nhanging gardens were one of the wonders of the world.\n\nBeyond this superb edifice, where now the hy\u00e6na prowls amid miles of\n_d\u00e9bris_ and mounds of ruin, and where the bittern builds amid pools\nof water, lay the unequalled city. Its walls were three hundred and\neighty feet high and eighty-five feet thick, and each side of the\nquadrilateral they enclosed was fifteen miles in length. The mighty\nEuphrates flowed through the midst of the city, which is said to\nhave covered a space of two hundred square miles; and on its farther\nbank, terrace above terrace, up to its central altar, rose the huge\nTemple of Bel, with all its dependent temples and palaces.[406] The\nvast circuit of the walls enclosed no mere wilderness of houses, but\nthere were interspaces of gardens, and palm-groves, and orchards, and\ncornland, sufficient to maintain the whole population. Here and there\nrose the temples reared to Nebo, and Sin the moon-god, and Mylitta,\nand Nana, and Samas, and other deities; and there were aqueducts or\nconduits for water, and forts and palaces; and the walls were pierced\nwith a hundred brazen gates. When Milton wanted to find some parallel\nto the city of Pandemonium in _Paradise Lost_, he could only say,--\n\n                             \"Not Babylon,\n            Nor great Alcairo such magnificence\n            Equall'd in all their glories, to enshrine\n            Belus or Serapis their gods, or seat\n            Their kings, when Egypt with Assyria strove\n            In wealth and luxury.\"\n\n\nBabylon, to use the phrase of Aristotle, included, not a city, but a\nnation.[407]\n\nEnchanted by the glorious spectacle of this house of his royalty and\nabode of his majesty, the despot exclaimed almost in the words of\nsome of his own inscriptions, \"Is not this great Babylon that I have\nbuilt for the house of the kingdom by the might of my treasures and\nfor the honour of my majesty?\"\n\nThe Bible always represents to us that pride and arrogant\nself-confidence are an offence against God. The doom fell on\nNebuchadrezzar \"while the haughty boast was still in the king's\nmouth.\" The suddenness of the Nemesis of pride is closely paralleled\nby the scene in the Acts of the Apostles in which Herod Agrippa I.\nis represented as entering the theatre at C\u00e6sarea to receive the\ndeputies of Tyre and Sidon. He was clad, says Josephus, in a robe of\nintertissued silver, and when the sun shone upon it he was surrounded\nwith a blaze of splendour. Struck by the scene, the people, when he had\nended his harangue to them, shouted, \"It is the voice of a god, and not\nof a man!\" Herod, too, in the story of Josephus, had received, just\nbefore, an ominous warning; but it came to him in vain. He accepted the\nblasphemous adulation, and immediately, smitten by the angel of God, he\nwas eaten of worms, and in three days was dead.[408]\n\nAnd something like this we see again and again in what the late Bishop\nThirlwall called the \"irony of history\"--the very cases in which men\nseem to have been elevated to the very summit of power only to heighten\nthe dreadful precipice over which they immediately fall. He mentions\nthe cases of Persia, which was on the verge of ruin, when with lordly\narrogance she dictated the Peace of Antalcidas; of Boniface VIII., in\nthe Jubilee of 1300, immediately preceding his deadly overthrow; of\nSpain, under Philip II., struck down by the ruin of the Armada at the\nzenith of her wealth and pride. He might have added the instances of\nAhab, Sennacherib, Nebuchadrezzar, and Herod Antipas; of Alexander the\nGreat, dying as the fool dieth, drunken and miserable, in the supreme\nhour of his conquests; of Napoleon, hurled into the dust, first by the\nretreat from Moscow, then by the overthrow at Waterloo.\n\n\"While the word was yet in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from\nheaven.\" It was what the Talmudists alluded to so frequently as the\n_Bath Q\u00f4l_, or \"daughter of a voice,\" which came sometimes for the\nconsolation of suffering, sometimes for the admonition of overweening\narrogance. It announced to him the fulfilment of the dream and its\ninterpretation. As with one lightning-flash the glorious cedar was\nblasted, its leaves scattered, its fruits destroyed, its shelter\nreduced to burning and barrenness. Then somehow the man's heart was\ntaken from him. He was driven forth to dwell among the beasts of the\nfield, to eat grass like oxen. Taking himself for an animal in his\ndegrading humiliation he lived in the open field. The dews of heaven\nfell upon him. His unkempt locks grew rough like eagles' feathers,\nhis uncut nails like claws. In this condition he remained till \"seven\ntimes\"--some vague and sacred cycle of days--passed over him.\n\nHis penalty was nothing absolutely abnormal. His illness is\nwell known to science and national tradition as that form\nof hypochondriasis in which a man takes himself for a wolf\n(lycanthropy), or a dog (kynanthropy), or some other animal.[409]\nProbably the fifth-century monks, who were known as _Boskoi_, from\nfeeding on grass, may have been, in many cases, half maniacs who\nin time took themselves for oxen. Cornill, so far as I know, is\nthe first to point out the curious circumstance that a notion as\nto the points of analogy between Nebuchad_n_ezzar (thus spelt) and\nAntiochus Epiphanes may have been strengthened by the Jewish method\nof mystic commentary known in the Talmud as _Gematria_, and in Greek\nas _Isopsephism_. That such methods, in other forms, were known and\npractised in early times we find from the substitution of Sheshach\nfor Babel in Jer. xxv. 26, li. 41, and of Tabeal (by some cryptogram)\nfor Remaliah in Isa. vii. 6; and of _lebh kamai_ (\"them that dwell\nin the midst of them\") for _Kasd\u00eem_ (Chaldeans) in Jer. li. 1. These\nforms are only explicable by the interchange of letters known as\nAthbash, Albam, etc. Now Nebuchadnezzar = 423:--\n\n  \u05e0 = 50; \u05d1 = 2; \u05d5 = 6; \u05db = 20; \u05d3 = 4; \u05e0 = 50; \u05d0 = 1;\n  \u05e6 = 90; \u05e8 = 200 = 423.\n\nAnd Antiochus Epiphanes = 423:--\n\n  \u05d0 = 1; \u05e0 = 50; \u05d8 = 9; \u05d9 = 10; \u05d5 = 6; \u05db = 20; \u05d5 = 6;\n  \u05e1 = 60 =    .    .    .    .    .    .    .   162}\n  \u05d0 = 1; \u05e4 = 70; \u05d9 = 10; \u05e4 = 70; \u05e0 = 50; \u05e1 = 60 = 261} = 423.\n\nThe madness of Antiochus was recognised in the popular change of\nhis name from Epiphanes to Epimanes. But there were obvious points\nof resemblance between these potentates. Both of them conquered\nJerusalem. Both of them robbed the Temple of its holy vessels. Both\nof them were liable to madness. Both of them tried to dictate the\nreligion of their subjects.\n\nWhat happened to the kingdom of Babylon during the interim is a point\nwith which the writer does not trouble himself. It formed no part\nof his story or of his moral. There is, however, no difficulty in\nsupposing that the chief mages and courtiers may have continued to\nrule in the king's name--a course rendered all the more easy by the\nextreme seclusion in which most Eastern monarchs pass their lives,\noften unseen by their subjects from one year's end to the other.\nAlike in ancient days as in modern--witness the cases of Charles VI.\nof France, Christian VII. of Denmark, George III. of England, and\nOtho of Bavaria--a king's madness is not allowed to interfere with\nthe normal administration of the kingdom.\n\nWhen the seven \"times\"--whether years or brief periods--were\nconcluded, Nebuchadrezzar \"lifted up his eyes to heaven,\" and his\nunderstanding returned to him. No further light is thrown on his\nrecovery, which (as is not infrequently the case in madness) was as\nsudden as his aberration. Perhaps the calm of the infinite azure over\nhis head flowed into his troubled soul, and reminded him that (as the\ninscriptions say) \"the Heavens\" are \"the father of the gods.\"[410] At\nany rate, with that upward glance came the restoration of his reason.\n\nHe instantly blessed the Most High, \"and praised and honoured Him\nwho liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion,\nand His kingdom is from generation to generation.[411] And all\nthe inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and He doeth\naccording to His will[412] in the army of heaven, and among the\ninhabitants of the earth;[413] and none can stay His hand, or say\nunto Him, What doest Thou?\"[414]\n\nThen his lords and counsellors reinstated him in his former majesty;\nhis honour and brightness returned to him; he was once more \"that\nhead of gold\" in his kingdom.[415]\n\nHe concludes the story with the words: \"Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise\nand extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth\nand His ways judgment;[416] and those that walk in pride He is able\nto abase.\"[417]\n\nHe died B.C. 561, and was deified, leaving behind him an invincible\nname.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[371] Comp. 1 Macc. i. 41, 42: \"And the king [Antiochus Epiphanes]\nwrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be one people, and every\none should leave his laws.\"\n\n[372] Isa. xxvi. 9.\n\n[373] Professor Fuller follows them in supposing that the decree\nis really a letter written by Daniel, as is shown by the analogy\nof similar documents, and the attestation (!) of the LXX. (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2). He adds, \"The undertone of genuineness which makes\nitself so inobtrusively felt to the Assyrian scholar when reading\nit, is _quite sufficient to decide the question of authenticity_\"!\nSuch remarks are meant only for a certain circle of readers already\nconvinced. If they were true, it would be singular that scarcely\none living Assyriologist accepts the authenticity of Daniel; and\nMr. Bevan calls this \"a narrative which contains _scarcely anything\nspecifically Babylonian_.\"\n\n[374] See _Jos. c. Ap._, I. 20, \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd (of Nebuchadrezzar); and I. 19 of Nabopolassar.\n\n[375] _Pr\u00e6p. Ev._, lx. 41.\n\n[376] I follow the better readings which Mr. Bevan adopts from Von\nGutschmid and Toup.\n\n[377] Comp. Ezra iv. 7, vii. 12.\n\n[378] If Nebuchadrezzar wrote this edict, he must have been very\nfamiliar with the language of Scripture. See Deut. vi. 22; Isa. viii.\n18; Psalm lxxviii. 12-16, cvi. 2; Mic. iv. 7, etc.\n\n[379] _Heykal_, \"palace\"; Bab., _ikallu_. Comp. Amos viii. 3. See the\npalace described in Layard, _Nineveh and Babylon_.\n\n[380] A mistake of the writer. See _supra_, p. 129.\n\n[381] _Rab-chartummaya._\n\n[382] Herod., i. 108.\n\n[383] \u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8. Comp. Mal. ii. 12 (perhaps \"the watchman and him that\nanswereth\"). LXX., \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2; Theodot., \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ae\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[384] Comp. Deut. xxxiii. 2; Zech. xiv. 5; Psalm lxxxix. 6; Job v. 1,\netc.\n\n[385] The LXX., in its free manipulation of the original, adds that\nthe king saw the dream fulfilled. In one day the tree was cut down,\nand its destruction completed in one hour.\n\n[386] Comp. Zech. xiv. 5; Psalm lxxxix. 6.\n\n[387] See Job xv. 15.\n\n[388] Dr. A. Kohut, _Die j\u00fcdische Angelologie_, p. 6, n. 17.\n\n[389] For a full examination of the subject see Oehler, _Theol. of\nthe O. T._, \u00a7 59, pp. 195 ff.; Schultz, _Alttest. Theol._, p. 555;\nHamburger, _Real-Encycl._, i., _s.v._ \"Engel\"; Professor Fuller,\n_Speaker's Commentary_, on the Apocrypha, Tobit, i., 171-183.\n\n[390] Sayce, _Records of the Past_, ix. 140.\n\n[391] The number seven is not, however, found in all texts.\n\n[392] The Jewish tradition admits that the names of the angels came\nfrom Persia (_Rosh Hashanah_, f. 56, 1; _Beresh\u00eeth Rabba_, c. 48;\nRiehm, _R. W. B._, i. 381).\n\n[393] Descent of Ishtar, _Records of the Past_, i. 141. Botta found\nseven rude figures buried under the thresholds of doors.\n\n[394] The Targum understands it \"for a moment.\"\n\n[395] The wish was quite natural. It is needless to follow Rashi,\netc., in making this an address to God, as though it were a prayer\nto Him that ruin might fall on His enemy Nebuchadrezzar. Comp. Ov.,\n_Fast._, iii. 494: \"Eveniat nostris hostibus ille color.\"\n\n[396] _Records of the Past_, i. 133.\n\n[397] Mark v. 3.\n\n[398] Bevan, p. 92.\n\n[399] In the _Mishnah_ often _Shamay\u00eem_; N. T., \u1f21 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n[400] Or, as in A.V. and Hitzig, \"if it may be a lengthening of thy\ntranquillity\"; but Ewald reads _arukah_, \"healing\" (Isa. lviii. 8),\nfor _ar'kah_.\n\n[401] _Baba Bathra_, f. 4, 1.\n\n[402] _Berach\u00f4th_, f. 10, 2; f. 57, 2.\n\n[403] Theodot., \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9; Vulg.,\n_peccata tua eleemosynis redime_. Comp. Psalm cxii. 9. This\nexaltation of almsgiving is a characteristic of later Judaism\n(Ecclus. iv. 5-10; Tobit iv. 11).\n\n[404] Comp. Prov. x. 2, xvi. 6; _Sukka_, f. 49, 2. The theological\nand ethical question involved is discussed by Calvin, _Instt._, iii.\n4; Bellarmine, _De P\u0153nitent_., ii. 6 (Behrmann).\n\n[405] It is now called Kasr, but the Arabs call it _Mujelib\u00e9_, \"The\nRuined.\"\n\n[406] Birs-Nimrod (Grote, _Hist. of Greece_, III., chap. xix.;\nLayard, _Nin. and Bab._, chap. ii.).\n\n[407] Arist., _Polit._, III. i. 12. He says that three days after its\ncapture some of its inhabitants were still unaware of the fact.\n\n[408] Acts xii. 20-23; Jos., _Antt._, XIV. viii. 2.\n\n[409] For further information on this subject I may refer to my paper\non \"Rabbinic Exegesis,\" _Expositor_, v. 362-378. The fact that there\nare slight variations in spelling Nebuchad_n_ezzar and Antiochus\nEpiphanes is of no importance.\n\n[410] Psalm cxxiii. 1. See Eurypides, _Bacch\u00e6_, 699.\n\n[411] Exod. xvii. 16.\n\n[412] Psalm cxlv. 13.\n\n[413] Isa. xxiv. 21, xl. 15, 17. For the \"host of heaven\" (\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Luke ii. 13) see Isa. xl. 26; Job. xxxviii. 7; 1 Kings\nxxii. 19; Enoch xviii. 14-16; Matt. xi. 25.\n\n[414] Isa. xliii. 13, xlv. 9; Psalm cxxxv. 6; Job ix. 12; Eccles.\nviii. 4. The phrase for \"to reprove\" is literally \"to strike on the\nhand,\" and is common in later Jewish writers.\n\n[415] Dan. ii. 38.\n\n[416] Psalm xxxiii. 4.\n\n[417] Exod. xviii. 11.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n\n                        _THE FIERY INSCRIPTION_\n\n            \"That night they slew him on his father's throne\n             He died unnoticed, and the hand unknown:\n             Crownless and sceptreless Belshazzar lay,\n             A robe of purple round a form of clay.\"\n                                                  SIR E. ARNOLD.\n\n\nIn this chapter again we have another magnificent fresco-picture,\nintended, as was the last--but under circumstances of aggravated\nguilt and more terrible menace--to teach the lesson that \"verily\nthere is a God that judgeth the earth.\"\n\nThe truest way to enjoy the chapter, and to grasp the lessons which\nit is meant to inculcate in their proper force and vividness, is to\nconsider it wholly apart from the difficulties as to its literal\ntruth. To read it aright, and duly to estimate its grandeur, we must\nrelegate to the conclusion of the story all worrying questions,\nimpossible of final solution, as to whom the writer intended by\nBelshazzar, or whom by Darius the Mede.[418] All such discussions\nare extraneous to edification, and in no way affect either the\nconsummate skill of the picture or the eternal truths of which it is\nthe symbolic expression. To those who, with the present writer, are\nconvinced, by evidence from every quarter--from philology, history,\nthe testimony of the inscriptions, and the manifold results obtained\nby the Higher Criticism--that the Book of Daniel is the work of some\nholy and highly gifted _Chas\u00eed_ in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes,\nit becomes clear that the story of Belshazzar, whatever dim fragments\nof Babylonian tradition it may enshrine, is really suggested by the\nprofanity of Antiochus Epiphanes in carrying off, and doubtless\nsubjecting to profane usage, many of the sacred vessels of the Temple\nof Jerusalem.[419] The retribution which awaited the wayward Seleucid\ntyrant is prophetically intimated by the menace of doom which\nreceived such immediate fulfilment in the case of the Babylonian\nKing. The humiliation of the guilty conqueror, \"Nebuchadrezzar the\nWicked,\" who founded the Empire of Babylon, is followed by the\noverthrow of his dynasty in the person of his \"son,\" and the capture\nof his vast capital.\n\n\"It is natural,\" says Ewald, \"that thus the picture drawn in this\nnarrative should become, under the hands of our author, a true\nnight-piece, with all the colours of the dissolute, extravagant riot of\nluxurious passion and growing madness, of ruinous bewilderment, and of\nthe mysterious horror and terror of such a night of revelry and death.\"\n\nThe description of the scene begins with one of those crashing\novertures of which the writer duly estimated the effect upon the\nimagination.\n\n\"Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords,\nand drank wine before the thousand.\"[420] The banquet may have been\nintended as some propitiatory feast in honour of Bel-merodach. It\nwas celebrated in that palace which was a wonder of the world, with\nits winged statues and splendid spacious halls. The walls were rich\nwith images of the Chaldeans, painted in vermilion and exceeding in\ndyed attire--those images of goodly youths riding on goodly horses,\nas in the Panathenaic procession on the frieze of the Acropolis--the\nfrescoed pictures, on which, in the prophet's vision, Aholah and\nAholibah, gloated in the chambers of secret imagery.[421] Belshazzar's\nprinces were there, and his wives, and his concubines, whose presence\nthe Babylonian custom admitted, though the Persian regarded it as\nunseemly.[422] The Babylonian banquets, like those of the Greeks,\nusually ended by a _K\u014dmos_ or revelry, in which intoxication was\nregarded as no disgrace. Wine flowed freely. Doubtless, as in the\ngrandiose picture of Martin, there were brasiers of precious metal,\nwhich breathed forth the fumes of incense;[423] and doubtless, too,\nthere were women and boys and girls with flutes and cymbals, to which\nthe dancers danced in all the orgiastic abandonment of Eastern passion.\nAll this was regarded as an element in the religious solemnity; and\nwhile the revellers drank their wine, hymns were being chanted, in\nwhich they praised \"the gods of gold and of silver, of brass, of iron,\nof wood, and of stone.\" That the king drank wine before the thousand is\nthe more remarkable because usually the kings of the East banquet in\nsolitary state in their own apartments.[424]\n\nThen the wild king, with just such a burst of folly and irreverence\nas characterised the banquets of Antiochus Epiphanes, bethought him\nof yet another element of splendour with which he might make his\nbanquet memorable, and prove the superiority of his own victorious\ngods over those of other nations. The Temple of Jerusalem was famous\nover all the world, and there were few monarchs who had not heard\nof the marvels and the majesty of the God of Israel. Belshazzar,\nas the \"son\" of Nebuchadrezzar, must--if there was any historic\nreality in the events narrated in the previous chapter--have heard\nof the \"signs and wonders\" displayed by the King of heaven, whose\nunparalleled awfulness his \"father\" had publicly attested in edicts\naddressed to all the world. He must have known of the Rab-mag Daniel,\nwhose wisdom, even as a boy, had been found superior to that of all\nthe _Chartumm\u00eem_ and _Ashshaph\u00eem_; and how his three companions had\nbeen elevated to supreme satrapies; and how they had been delivered\nunsinged from the seven-times-heated furnace, whose flames had killed\nhis father's executioners. Under no conceivable circumstances could\nsuch marvels have been forgotten; under no circumstances could they\nhave possibly failed to create an intense and a profound impression.\nAnd Belshazzar could hardly fail to have heard of the dreams of the\ngolden image and of the shattered cedar, and of Nebuchadrezzar's\nunspeakably degrading lycanthropy. His \"father\" had publicly\nacknowledged--in a decree published \"to all peoples, nations, and\nlanguages that dwell in all the earth\"--that humiliation had come\nupon him as a punishment for his overweening pride. In that same\ndecree the mighty Nebuchadrezzar--only a year or two before, if\nBelshazzar succeeded him--had proclaimed his allegiance to the King\nof heaven; and in all previous decrees he had threatened \"all people,\nnations, and languages\" that, if they spake anything amiss against\nthe God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, they should be cut in\npieces, and their houses made a dunghill.[425] Yet now Belshazzar,\nin the flush of pride and drunkenness,[426] gives his order to insult\nthis God with deadly impiety by publicly defiling the vessels of His\nawful Temple,[427] at a feast in honour of his own idol deities!\n\nSimilarly Antiochus Epiphanes, if he had not been half mad, might have\ntaken warning, before he insulted the Temple and the sacred vessels\nof Jerusalem, from the fact that his father, Antiochus the Great, had\nmet his death in attempting to plunder the Temple at Elymais (B.C.\n187). He might also have recalled the celebrated discomfiture--however\ncaused--of Heliodorus in the Temple of Jerusalem.[428]\n\nSuch insulting and reckless blasphemy could not go unpunished. It\nis fitting that the Divine retribution should overtake the king on\nthe same night, and that the same lips which thus profaned with this\nwine the holiest things should sip the wine of the Divine poison-cup,\nwhose fierce heat must in the same night prove fatal to himself.\nBut even such sinners, drinking as it were over the pit of hell,\n\"according to a metaphor used elsewhere,[429] must still at the last\nmoment be warned by a suitable Divine sign, that it may be known\nwhether they will honour the truth.\"[430] Nebuchadrezzar had received\n_his_ warning, and in the end it had not been wholly in vain. Even\nfor Belshazzar it might perhaps not prove to be too late.\n\nFor at this very moment[431] when the revelry was at its zenith,\nwhen the whirl of excited self-exaltation was most intense, when\nJudah's gold was \"treading heavy on the lips\"--the profane lips--of\nsatraps and concubines, there appeared a portent, which seems at\nfirst to have been visible to the king alone.\n\nSeated on his lofty and jewelled throne, which\n\n            \"Outshone the wealth of Ormuz or of Ind,\n             Or where the gorgeous East with richest hand\n             Showers on its kings barbaric pearl and gold,\"\n\nhis eye caught _something_ visible on the white stucco of the wall\nabove the line of frescoes.[432] He saw it over the lights which\ncrowned the huge golden _Nebrashta_, or chandelier.[433] The fingers\nof a man's hand were writing letters on the wall, and the king saw\nthe hollow of that gigantic supernatural palm.[434]\n\nThe portent astounded and horrified him. The flush of youth and of\nwine faded from his cheek;--\"his brightnesses were changed\"; his\nthoughts troubled him; the bands of his loins were loosed;[435] his\nknees smote one against another in his trembling attitude,[436] as he\nstood arrested by the awful sight.\n\nWith a terrible cry he ordered that the whole familiar tribe\nof astrologers and soothsayers should be summoned. For though\nthe hand had vanished, its trace was left on the wall of the\nbanqueting-chamber in letters of fire. And the stricken king,\nanxious to know above all things the purport of that strange writing,\nproclaims that he who could interpret it should be clothed in\nscarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and should be one\nof the triumvirs of the kingdom.[437]\n\nIt was the usual resource; and it failed as it had done in every\nprevious instance. The Babylonian magi in the Book of Daniel prove\nthemselves to be more futile even than Pharaoh's magicians with their\nenchantments.\n\nThe dream-interpreters in all their divisions entered the\nbanquet-hall. The king was perturbed, the omen urgent, the reward\nmagnificent. But it was all in vain. As usual they failed, as in\nevery instance in which they are introduced in the Old Testament.\nAnd their failure added to the visible confusion of the king, whose\nlivid countenance retained its pallor. The banquet, in all its royal\nmagnificence, seemed likely to end in tumult and confusion; for the\nprinces, and satraps, and wives, and concubines all shared in the\nagitation and bewilderment of their sovereign.\n\nMeanwhile the tidings of the startling prodigy had reached the ears\nof the Geb\u00eerah--the queen-mother--who, as always in the East, held a\nhigher rank than even the reigning sultana.[438] She had not been\npresent at--perhaps had not approved of--the luxurious revel, held\nwhen the Persians were at the very gates. But now, in her young son's\nextremity, she comes forward to help and advise him. Entering the\nhall with her attendant maidens, she bids the king to be no longer\ntroubled, for there is a man of the highest rank--invariably, as\nwould appear, overlooked and forgotten till the critical moment,\nin spite of his long series of triumphs and achievements--who was\nquite able to read the fearful augury, as he had often done before,\nwhen all others had been foiled by Him who \"frustrateth the tokens\nof the liars and maketh diviners mad.\"[439] Strange that he should\nnot have been thought of, though \"the king thy father, the king, I\nsay, thy father, made him master of the whole college of mages and\nastrologers. Let Belshazzar send for Belteshazzar, and he would untie\nthe knot and read the awful enigma.\"[440]\n\nThen, Daniel was summoned; and since the king \"has heard of him, that\nthe spirit of the gods is in him, and that light and understanding\nand excellent wisdom is found in him,\" and that he is one who can\ninterpret dreams, and unriddle hard sentences and untie knots, he\nshall have the scarlet robe, and the golden chain, and the seat among\nthe triumvirs, if he will read and interpret the writing.\n\n\"Let thy gifts be thine, and thy rewards to another,\"[441] answered\nthe seer, with fearless forthrightness: \"yet, O king, I will read and\ninterpret the writing.\" Then, after reminding him of the consummate\npower and majesty of his father Nebuchadrezzar; and how his mind\nhad become indurated with pride; and how he had been stricken with\nlycanthropy, \"till he knew that the Most High God ruled in the\nkingdom of men\"; and that, in spite of all this, he, Belshazzar, in\nhis infatuation, had insulted the Most High God by profaning the holy\nvessels of His Temple in a licentious revelry in honour of idols of\ngold, silver, brass, iron, and stone, which neither see, nor know,\nnor hear,--for this reason (said the seer) had the hollow hand been\nsent and the writing stamped upon the wall.\n\nAnd now what was the writing? Daniel at the first glance had read\nthat fiery quadrilateral of letters, looking like the twelve gems of\nthe high priest's ephod with the mystic light gleaming upon them.\n\n                            +----+----+----+\n                            | M. | N. | A. |\n                            +----+----+----+\n                            | M. | N. | A. |\n                            +----+----+----+\n                            | T. | Q. | L. |\n                            +----+----+----+\n                            | P. | R. | S. |\n                            +----+----+----+\n\nFour names of weight.[442]\n\n                          +-------------------+\n                          | A Mina.           |\n                          +-------------------+\n                          | A Mina.           |\n                          +-------------------+\n                          | A Shekel.         |\n                          +-------------------+\n                          | A Half-mina.[443] |\n                          +-------------------+\n\nWhat possible meaning could there be in that? Did it need an\narchangel's colossal hand, flashing forth upon a palace-wall to write\nthe menace of doom, to have inscribed no more than the names of four\ncoins or weights? No wonder that the Chaldeans could not interpret\nsuch writing!\n\nIt may be asked why they could not even _read_ it, since the words\nare evidently Aramaic, and Aramaic was the common language of trade.\nThe Rabbis say that the words, instead of being written from right\nto left, were written \u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd, \"pillar-wise,\" as the Greeks called\nit, from above downwards: thus--\n\n                            +---+---+---+--+\n                            | \u05e4 | \u05ea | \u05de | \u05de |\n                            +---+---+---+--+\n                            | \u05e8 | \u05e7 | \u05e0 | \u05e0  |\n                            +---+---+---+--+\n                            | \u05e1 | \u05dc | \u05d0 | \u05d0 |\n                            +---+---+---+--+\n\nRead from left to right, they would look like gibberish; read from\nabove downwards, they became clear as far as the reading was concerned,\nthough their interpretation might still be surpassingly enigmatic.\n\nBut words may stand for all sorts of mysterious meanings; and in\nthe views of analogists--as those are called who not only believe\nin the mysterious force and fascination of words, but even in the\nphysiological quality of sounds--they may hide awful indications\nunder harmless vocables. Herein lay the secret.\n\nA mina! a mina! Yes; but the names of the weights recall the word\n_m'nah_, \"hath numbered\": and \"God hath numbered thy kingdom and\nfinished it.\"\n\nA shekel! Yes; _t'qilta_: \"Thou hast been weighed in a balance and\nfound wanting.\"\n\n_Peres_--a half-mina! Yes; but _p'r\u00eesath_: \"Thy kingdom has been\ndivided, and given to the Medes and Persians.\"[444]\n\nAt this point the story is very swiftly brought to a conclusion, for\nits essence has been already given. Daniel is clothed in scarlet, and\nornamented with the chain of gold, and proclaimed triumvir.[445]\n\nBut the king's doom is sealed! \"That night was Belshazzar, king of the\nChaldeans, slain.\" His name meant, \"Bel! preserve thou the king!\" But\nBel bowed down, and Nebo stooped, and gave no help to their votary.\n\n            \"Evil things in robes of sorrow\n               Assailed the monarch's high estate;\n             Ah, woe is me! for never morrow\n               Shall dawn upon him desolate!\n             And all about his throne the glory\n               That blushed and bloomed\n             Is but an ill-remembered story\n               Of the old time entombed.\"\n\n\"And Darius the Mede took the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.\"\n\nAs there is no such person known as \"Darius the Mede,\" the age\nassigned to him must be due either to some tradition about some\nother Darius, or to chronological calculations to which we no longer\npossess the key.[446]\n\nHe is called the son of _Achashverosh_, Ahasuerus (ix. 1), or Xerxes.\nThe apologists have argued that--\n\n1. Darius was Cyaxares II., father of Cyrus, on the authority of\nXenophon's romance,[447] and Josephus's echo of it.[448] But the\n_Cyrop\u00e6dia_ is no authority, being, as Cicero said, a non-historic\nfiction written to describe an ideal kingdom.[449] History knows\nnothing of a Cyaxares II.\n\n2. Darius was Astyages.[450] Not to mention other impossibilities\nwhich attach to this view, Astyages would have been far older than\nsixty-two at the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. Cyrus had suppressed\nthe Median dynasty altogether some years before he took Babylon.\n\n3. Darius was the satrap Gobryas, who, so far as we know, only acted\nas governor for a few months. But he is represented on the contrary\nas an extremely absolute king, setting one hundred and twenty princes\n\"over the whole kingdom,\" and issuing mandates to \"all people,\nnations, and languages that dwell in all the earth.\" Even if such an\nidentification were admissible, it would not in the least save the\nhistoric accuracy of the writer. This \"Darius the Mede\" is ignored by\nhistory, and Cyrus is represented by the ancient records as having\nbeen the sole and undisputed king of Babylon from the time of his\nconquest.[451] \"Darius the Mede\" probably owes his existence to a\nliteral understanding of the prophecies of Isaiah (xiii. 17) and\nJeremiah (li. 11, 28).\n\nWe can now proceed to the examination of the next chapter unimpeded\nby impossible and half-hearted hypotheses. We understand it, and\nit was meant to be understood, as a moral and spiritual parable,\nin which unverified historic names and traditions are utilised for\nthe purpose of inculcating lessons of courage and faithfulness. The\npicture, however, falls far below those of the other chapters in\npower, finish, and even an approach to natural verisimilitude.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[418] The question has already been fully discussed (_supra_, pp.\n54-57). The apologists say that--\n\n1. Belshazzar was _Evil-merodach_ (Niebuhr, Wolff, Bishop Westcott,\nZ\u00f6ckler, Keil, etc.), as the son of Nebuchadrezzar (Dan. v. 2, 11,\n18, 22), and his successor (Baruch i. 11, 12, where he is called\nBalthasar, as in the LXX.). The identification is impossible (see\nDan. v. 28, 31); for Evil-merodach (B.C. 561) was murdered by his\nbrother-in-law Neriglissar (B.C. 559). Besides, the Jews were well\nacquainted with _Evil-merodach_ (2 Kings xxv. 27; Jer. lii. 31.)\n\n2. Belshazzar was Nabunaid (St. Jerome, Ewald, Winer, Herzfeld,\nAuberlen, etc.). But the usurper Nabunaid, son of a Rab-mag, was wholly\nunlike Belshazzar; and so far from being slain, he was pardoned, and\nsent by Cyrus to be Governor of Karmania, in which position he died.\n\n3. Belshazzar was _the son of Nabunaid_. But though Nabunaid\n_had_ a son of the name he was never king. We know nothing of any\nrelationship between him and Nebuchadrezzar, nor does Cyrus in\nhis records make the most distant allusion to him. The attempt to\nidentify Nebuchadrezzar with an unknown Marduk-sar-utsur, mentioned\nin Babylonian tablets, breaks down; for Mr. Boscawen (_Soc. Bibl._,\nin \u00a7 vi., p. 108) finds that he reigned _before_ Nabunaid. Further,\nthe son of Nabunaid perished, not in Babylon, but in Accad.\n\n[419] See 1 Macc. i. 21-24. He \"entered proudly into the sanctuary,\nand took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all\nthe vessels thereof, and the table of the shewbread, and the pouring\nvessels, and the vials, and the censers of gold.... He took also\nthe silver and the gold, and the precious vessels: also he took the\nhidden treasures which he found,\" etc. Comp. 2 Macc. v. 11-14; Diod.\nSic., XXXI. i. 48. The value of precious metals which he carried off\nwas estimated at one thousand eight hundred silver talents--about\n\u00a3350,000 (2 Macc. v. 21).\n\n[420] The LXX. says \"two thousand.\" Comp. Esther i. 3, 4. Jerome\nadds, \"Unusquisque secundum suam bibit \u00e6tatem.\"\n\n[421] Ezek. xxiii. 15.\n\n[422] Herod., i. 191, v. 18; Xen., _Cyrop._, V. ii. 28; Q. Curt., V.\ni. 38. Theodotion, perhaps scandalised by the fact, omits the wives,\nand the LXX. omits both wives and concubines.\n\n[423] Layard, _Nin. and Bab._, ii. 262-269.\n\n[424] Athen., _Deipnos_, iv. 145. See the bas-relief in the British\nMuseum of King Assur-bani-pal drinking wine with his queen, while the\nhead of his vanquished enemy, Te-Umman, King of Elam, dangles from a\npalm-branch full in his view, so that he can feast his eyes upon it.\nNone others are present except the attendant eunuchs.\n\n[425] Dan. iii. 29.\n\n[426] The Babylonians were notorious for drunken revels. Q. Curt., V.\ni., \"Babylonii maxime in vinum et qu\u00e6 ebrietatem sequuntur, effusi\nsunt.\"\n\n[427] Dan. i. 2. Comp. 1 Macc. i. 21 ff.\n\n[428] 2 Macc. iii.\n\n[429] Psalm lv. 15.\n\n[430] Ewald.\n\n[431] Comp. Dan. iii. 7.\n\n[432] See Layard, _Nin. and Bab._, ii. 269.\n\n[433] A word of uncertain origin. The Talmud uses it for the word\n\u05dc\u05de\u05e4\u05d3\u05e1 (the Greek \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c2).\n\n[434] \"Hollow.\" Heb., _pas_; Theodot., \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2; Vulg., _articulos_.\nThe word may mean \"palm\" of the hand, or sole of the foot (Bevan).\n\n[435] Psalm lxix. 23. \"Bands\"--lit. \"fastenings\"; Theodot.,\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af; Vulg., _compages_.\n\n[436] Comp. Ezek. vii. 17, and the Homeric \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, _Od._, iv.\n703; Ov., _Met._, ii. 180, \"genua intremuere timore.\"\n\n[437] Doubtless suggested by Gen. xli. 42 (comp. Herod., iii. 20;\nXen., _Anab._, I. ii. 27; _Cyrop._, VIII. v. 18), as other parts of\nDaniel's story recall that of Joseph. Comp. Esther vi. 8, 9. The word\nfor \"scarlet\" or red-purple is _argona_. The word for \"chain\" (_Q'r\u00ee.\nham'n\u00eeka_) is in Theodotion rendered \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2, and occurs in later\nAramaic. The phrase rendered \"third ruler\" is very uncertain. The\ninference drawn from it in the _Speaker's Commentary_--that Nabunaid\nwas king, and Belshazzar second ruler--is purely nugatory. For the\nHebrew word _talt\u00ee_ cannot mean \"third,\" which would be \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b7\u05d9.\nEwald and most Hebraists take it to mean \"rule, as one of the board\nof three.\" For \"triumvir\" comp. vi. 2.\n\n[438] 1 Kings xv. 13. She is precariously identified by the\napologists with the Nitocris of Herodotus; and it is imagined that\nshe may have been a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar, married to Nabunaid\nbefore the murder of Neriglissar.\n\n[439] Isa. xliv. 25.\n\n[440] The word _Qistr\u00een_, \"knots,\" may mean \"hard questions\"; but Mr.\nBevan (p. 104) thinks there may be an allusion to knots used as magic\nspells. (Comp. Sen., _\u0152dip._, 101, \"_Nodosa_ sortis verba et _implexos_\ndolos.\") He quotes Al-Baidawi on the Koran, lxiii. 4, who says that\n\"a Jew casts a spell on Mohammed by tying knots in a cord, and hiding\nit in a well.\" But Gabriel told the prophet to send for the cord, and\nat each verse of the Koran recited over it a knot untied itself. See\n_Records of the Past_, iii. 141; and Duke, _Rabb. Blumenlehre_, 231.\n\n[441] So Elisha, 2 Kings v. 16.\n\n[442] The _Men\u00ea_ is repeated for emphasis. In the _Uphars\u00een_ (ver.\n25) the _u_ is merely the \"and,\" and the word is slightly altered,\nperhaps to make the paronomasia with \"Persians\" more obvious.\nAccording to Buxtorf and Gesenius, _peras_, in the sense of \"divide,\"\nis very rare in the Targums.\n\n[443] _Journal Asiatique_, 1886. (Comp. N\u00f6ldeke, _Ztschr.\nf\u00fcr Assyriologie_, i. 414-418; Kamphausen, p. 46.) It is M.\nClermont-Ganneau who has the credit of discovering what seems to be the\ntrue interpretation of these mysterious words. _M'n\u00ea_ (Heb. _Maneh_)\nis the Greek \u03bc\u03bd\u1fb6, Lat. _mina_, which the Greeks borrowed from the\nAssyrians. _Tekel_ (in the Targum of Onkelos _t\u00eekla_) is the Hebrew\n_shekel_. In the _Mishnah_ a half-mina is called _peras_, and an\nAssyrian weight in the British Museum bears the inscription _perash_ in\nthe Aramaic character. (See Bevan, p. 106; Schrader, _s.v._ \"Mene\" in\nRiehm, _R.W.B._) _Peres_ is used for a half-mina in _Yoma_, f. 4, 4;\noften in the Talmud; and in _Corp. Inscr. Sem._, ii. 10 (Behrmann).\n\n[444] The word occurs in _Perez_ Uzza. There still, however, remain\nsome obviously unexplored mysteries about these words. Paronomasia,\nas I showed long ago in other works, plays a noble and profound part\nin the language of emotion; and that the interpretation should here\nbe made to turn upon it is not surprising by any means. We find it\nin the older prophets. Thus in Jer. i. 11, 12: \"What seest thou? And\nI said, I see a rod of _an almond tree_. Then said the Lord unto me,\nThou hast well seen: for I will _hasten_ My word to perform it.\" The\nmeaning here depends on the resemblance in Hebrew between _shaqeed_,\n\"an almond tree\" (\"a wakeful, or early tree\"), and _shoqeed_, \"I will\nhasten,\" or \"am wakeful over.\"\n\nAnd that the same use of plays on words was still common in the\nMaccabean epoch we see in the Story of Susanna. There Daniel plays\non the resemblance between \u03c3\u03c7\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \"a mastick tree,\" and \u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9,\n\"shall cut thee in two\"; and \u03c0\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \"a holm oak,\" and \u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \"to\ncut asunder.\" We may also point to the fine paronomasia in the Hebrew\nof Isa. v. 7, Mic. i. 10-15, and other passages. \"Such a conceit,\"\nsays Mr. Ball, \"may seem to us far-fetched and inappropriate; but the\nOriental mind delights in such _lusus verborum_, and the peculiar\nforce of all such passages in the Hebrew prophets is lost in our\nversion because they have not been preserved in translation.\"\n\nAs regards the Medes, they are placed _after_ the Persians in Isa.\nxxi. 2, Esther i. 3, but generally _before_ them.\n\n[445] LXX., \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2; Theodot., \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. See _supra_, p. 210.\n\n[446] The LXX. evidently felt some difficulty or followed some other\ntext, for they render it, \"And _Artaxerxes of the Medes_ took the\nkingdom, and Darius full of _days and glorious in old age_.\" So, too,\nJosephus (_Antt._, X. xi. 4), who says that \"he was called by another\nname among the Greeks.\"\n\n[447] _Cyrop._, I. v. 2.\n\n[448] _Antt._, X. xi. 4. This was the view of Vitringa, Bertholdt,\nGesenius, Winer, Keil, Hengstenberg, H\u00e4vernick, etc.\n\n[449] _Ad. Q. Fratr._, i. 8.\n\n[450] The view of Niebuhr and Westcott.\n\n[451] See Herod., i. 109. The Median Empire fell B.C. 559; Babylon\nwas taken about B.C. 539. It is regarded as \"important\" that a late\nGreek lexicographer, long after the Christian era, makes the vague\nand wholly unsupported assertion that the \"Daric\" was named after\nsome Darius other than the father of Xerxes! See _supra_, pp. 57-60.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI\n\n                     _STOPPING THE MOUTHS OF LIONS_\n\n     \"Thou shalt tread upon the lion ... the young lion shalt thou\n     trample under thy feet.\"--PSALM xci. 13.\n\n\nOn the view which regards these pictures as powerful parables, rich\nin spiritual instructiveness, but not primarily concerned with\nhistoric accuracy, nor even necessarily with ancient tradition, we\nhave seen how easily \"the great strong fresco-strokes\" which the\nnarrator loves to use \"may have been suggested to him by his diligent\nstudy of the Scriptures.\"\n\nThe first chapter is a beautiful picture which serves to set forth\nthe glory of moderation and to furnish a vivid concrete illustration\nof such passages as those of Jeremiah: \"Her Nazarites were purer than\nsnow; they were whiter than milk; they were more ruddy in body than\nrubies; their polishing was of sapphire.\"[452]\n\nThe second chapter, closely reflecting in many of its details the\nstory of Joseph, illustrated how God \"frustrateth the tokens of the\nliars, and maketh diviners mad; turneth wise men backward, and maketh\ntheir knowledge foolish; confirmeth the word of His servant, and\nperformeth the counsel of His messengers.\"[453]\n\nThe third chapter gives vividness to the promise, \"When thou walkest\nthrough the fire, thou shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame\nkindle upon thee.\"[454]\n\nThe fourth chapter repeats the apologue of Ezekiel, in which he\ncompares the King of Assyria to a cedar in Lebanon with fine\nbranches, and with a shadowy shroud, and fair by the multitude\nof his branches, so that all the trees of Eden that were in the\ngarden of God envied him, but whose boughs were \"broken by all the\nwatercourses until the peoples of the earth left his shadow.\"[455]\nIt was also meant to show that \"pride goeth before destruction, and\na haughty spirit before a fall.\"[456] It illustrates the words of\nIsaiah: \"Behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, shall lop the bough\nwith terror; and the high ones of stature shall be hewn down, and the\nhaughty shall be humbled.\"[457]\n\nThe fifth chapter gives a vivid answer to Isaiah's challenge: \"Let\nnow the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators,\nstand up and save thee from these things which shall come upon\nthee.\"[458] It describes a fulfilment of his vision: \"A grievous\nvision is declared unto thee; the treacherous dealer dealeth\ntreacherously, and the spoiler spoileth. Go up, O Elam: besiege,\nO Media.\"[459] The more detailed prophecy of Jeremiah had said:\n\"Prepare against Babylon the nations with the kings of the Medes....\nThe mighty men of Babylon have forborne to fight.... One post shall\nrun to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to show the\nKing of Babylon that his city is taken at one end.... In their heat\nI will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they\nshall rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the\nLord.... How is Sheshach taken![460] and how is the praise of the\nwhole earth surprised!... And I will make drunk her princes, and her\nwise men, her captains, and her rulers, and her mighty men; and they\nshall sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the King, whose\nname is the Lord of hosts.\"[461]\n\nThe sixth chapter puts into concrete form such passages of the\nPsalmist as: \"My soul is among lions: and I lie even among them\nthat are set on fire, even the sons of men, whose teeth are spears\nand arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword\";[462] and--\"Break the\njaw-bones of the lions, O Lord\";[463] and--\"They have cut off my life\nin the dungeon, and cast a stone upon me\"[464]:--and more generally\nsuch promises as those in Isaiah: \"No weapon that is formed against\nthee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in\njudgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of\nthe Lord, and their righteousness is of Me, saith the Lord.\"[465]\n\nThis genesis of _Haggadoth_ is remarkably illustrated by the\napocryphal additions to Daniel. Thus the History of Susanna was very\nprobably suggested by Jeremiah's allusion (xxix. 22) to the two false\nprophets Ahab and Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadrezzar burnt.[466] Similarly\nthe story of Bel and the Dragon is a fiction which expounds Jer. li.\n44: \"And I will punish Bel in Babylon, and I will bring forth out of\nhis mouth that which he hath swallowed up.\"[467]\n\nHitherto the career of Daniel had been personally prosperous. We\nhave seen him in perpetual honour and exaltation, and he had not\neven incurred--though he may now have been ninety years old--such\nearly trials and privations in a heathen land as had fallen to the\nlot of Joseph, his youthful prototype. His three companions had been\npotential martyrs; he had not even been a confessor. Terrible as\nwas the doom which he had twice been called upon to pronounce upon\nNebuchadrezzar and upon his kingdom, the stern messages of prophecy,\nso far from involving him in ruin, had only helped to uplift him to\nthe supremest honours. Not even the sternness of his bearing, and\nthe terrible severity of his interpretations of the flaming message\nto Belshazzar, had prevented him from being proclaimed triumvir, and\nclothed in scarlet, and decorated with a chain of gold, on the last\nnight of the Babylonian Empire. And now a new king of a new dynasty\nis represented as seated on the throne; and it might well have seemed\nthat Daniel was destined to close his days, not only in peace, but in\nconsummate outward felicity.\n\nDarius the Mede began his reign by appointing one hundred and twenty\nprinces over the whole kingdom;[468] and over these he placed three\npresidents. Daniel is one of these \"eyes\" of the king.[469] \"Because\nan excellent spirit was in him,\" he acquired preponderant influence\namong the presidents; and the king, considering that Daniel's\nintegrity would secure him from damage in the royal accounts,\ndesigned to set him over the whole realm.\n\nBut assuming that the writer is dealing, not with the real, but\nwith the ideal, something would be lacking to Daniel's eminent\nsaintliness, if he were not set forth as no less capable of martyrdom\non behalf of his convictions than his three companions had been. From\nthe fiery trial in which their faithfulness had been proved like\ngold in the furnace he had been exempt. His life thus far had been\na course of unbroken prosperity. But the career of a pre-eminent\nprophet and saint hardly seems to have won its final crown, unless\nhe also be called upon to mount his Calvary, and to share with all\nprophets and all saints the persecutions which are the invariable\nconcomitants of the hundredfold reward.[470] Shadrach, Meshach,\nand Abed-nego had been tested in early youth: the trial of Daniel\nis reserved for his extreme old age. It is not, it could not be, a\n_severer_ trial than that which his friends braved, nor could his\ndeliverance be represented as more supernatural or more complete,\nunless it were that they endured only for a few moments the semblable\nviolence of the fire, while he was shut up for all the long hours\nof night alone in the savage lions' den. There are, nevertheless,\ntwo respects in which this chapter serves as a climax to those\nwhich preceded it. On the one hand, the virtue of Daniel is of a\nmarked character in that it is _positive_, and not negative--in\nthat it consists, not in rejecting an overt sin of idolatry, but in\ncontinuing the private duty of prayer; on the other, the decree of\nDarius surpasses even those of Nebuchadrezzar in the intensity of its\nacknowledgment of the supremacy of Israel's God.\n\nDaniel's age--for by this time he must have passed the allotted limit\nof man's threescore years and ten--might have exempted him from envy,\neven if, as the LXX. adds, \"he was clad in purple.\" But jealous that\na captive Jew should be exalted above all the native satraps and\npotentates by the king's favour, his colleagues the presidents (whom\nthe LXX. calls \"two young men\") and the princes \"_rushed_\" before the\nking with a request which they thought would enable them to overthrow\nDaniel by subtlety. Faithfulness is required in stewards;[471] and\nthey knew that his faithfulness and wisdom were such that they would\nbe unable to undermine him in any ordinary way. There was but one\npoint at which they considered him to be vulnerable, and that was in\nany matter which affected his allegiance to an alien worship. But\nit was difficult to invent an incident which would give them the\nsought-for opportunity. All polytheisms are as tolerant as their\npriests will let them be. The worship of the Jews in the Exile was of\na necessarily private nature. They had no Temple, and such religious\ngatherings as they held were in no sense unlawful. The problem of the\nwriter was to manage his _Haggada_ in such a way as to make private\nprayer an act of treason; and the difficulty is met--not, indeed,\nwithout violent improbability, for which, however, Jewish haggadists\ncared little, but with as much skill as the circumstances permitted.\n\nThe phrase that they \"made a tumult\" or \"rushed\"[472] before the\nking, which recurs in vi. 11 and 18, is singular, and looks as if\nit were _intentionally_ grotesque by way of satire. The etiquette\nof Oriental courts is always most elaborately stately, and requires\nsolemn obeisance. This is why \u00c6schylus makes Agamemnon say, in answer\nto the too-obsequious fulsomeness of his false wife,--\n\n                \"\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1, \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72\n                 \u1f05\u03b2\u03c1\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\n                 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b2\u03cc\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03af.\"\n\n            \"Besides, prithee, use not too fond a care\n             To me, as to some virgin whom thou strivest\n             To deck with ornaments, whose softness looks\n             Softer, hung round the softness of her youth;\n             Ope not the mouth to me, nor cry amain\n             As at the footstool of a man of the East\n             Prone on the ground: so stoop not thou to me!\"\n\nThat these \"presidents and satraps,\" instead of trying to win the\nking by such flatteries and \"gaping upon him an earth-grovelling\nhowl,\" should on each occasion have \"rushed\" into his presence, must\nbe regarded either as a touch of intentional sarcasm, or, at any\nrate, as being more in accord with the rude familiarities of licence\npermitted to the courtiers of the half-mad Antiochus, than with the\nprostrations and solemn approaches which since the days of De\u00efoces\nwould alone have been permitted by any conceivable \"Darius the Mede.\"\n\nHowever, after this tumultuous intrusion into the king's presence,\n\"all the presidents, governors, chief chamberlains,\" present to him\nthe monstrous but unanimous request that he would, by an irrevocable\ninterdict, forbid that any man should, for thirty days, ask any\npetition of any god or man, on peril of being cast into the den of\nlions.[473]\n\nProfessor Fuller, in the _Speaker's Commentary_, considers that \"this\nchapter gives a valuable as well as an interesting insight into Median\ncustoms,\" because the king is represented as living a secluded life,\nand keeps lions, and is practically deified! The importance of the\nremark is far from obvious. The chapter presents no particular picture\nof a secluded life. On the contrary, the king moves about freely, and\nhis courtiers seem to have free access to him whenever they choose.\nAs for the semi-deification of kings, it was universal throughout the\nEast, and even Antiochus II. had openly taken the surname of _Theos_,\nthe \"god.\" Again, every Jew throughout the world must have been very\nwell aware, since the days of the Exile, that Assyrian and other\nmonarchs kept dens of lions, and occasionally flung their enemies to\nthem.[474] But so far as the decree of Darius is concerned, it may well\nbe said that throughout all history no single parallel to it can be\nquoted. Kings have very often been deified in absolutism; but not even\na mad Antiochus, a mad Caligula, a mad Elagabalus, or a mad Commodus\never dreamt of passing an interdict that no one was to prefer any\npetition either to God or man for thirty days, except to himself! A\ndecree so preposterous, which might be violated by millions many times\na day without the king being cognisant of it, would be a proof of\npositive imbecility in any king who should dream of making it. Strange,\ntoo--though a matter of indifference to the writer, because it did\nnot affect his moral lesson--that Darius should not have noticed the\nabsence of his chief official, and the one man in whom he placed the\nfullest and deepest confidence.\n\nThe king, without giving another thought to the matter, at once signs\nthe irrevocable decree.\n\nIt naturally does not make the least difference to the practices\nor the purpose of Daniel. His duty towards God transcends his duty\nto man. He has been accustomed, thrice a day, to kneel and pray to\nGod, with the window of his upper chamber open, looking towards the\n_Kibleh_ of Jerusalem;[475] and the king's decree makes no change in\nhis manner of daily worship.\n\nThen the princes \"rushed\" thither again, and found Daniel praying and\nasking petitions before his God.\n\nInstantly they go before the king, and denounce Daniel for his triple\ndaily defiance of the sacrosanct decree, showing that \"he regardeth\nnot thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed.\"\n\nTheir denunciations produced an effect very different from what they\nhad intended. They had hoped to raise the king's wrath and jealousy\nagainst Daniel, as one who lightly esteemed his divine autocracy.\nBut so far from having any such ignoble feeling, the king only sees\nthat he has been an utter fool, the dupe of the worthlessness of his\ndesigning courtiers.[476] All his anger was against himself for his own\nfolly; his sole desire was to save the man whom for his integrity and\nability he valued more than the whole crew of base plotters who had\nentrapped him against his will into a stupid act of injustice. All day,\ntill sunset, he laboured hard to deliver Daniel.[477] The whole band\nof satraps and chamberlains feel that this will not do at all; so they\nagain \"rush\" to the king to remind him of the Median and Persian law\nthat no decree which the king has passed can be altered.[478] To alter\nit would be a confession of fallibility, and therefore an abnegation\nof godhead! Yet the strenuous action which he afterwards adopted\nshows that he might, even then, have acted on the principle which the\nmages laid down to Cambyses, son of Cyrus, that \"the king can do no\nwrong.\" There seems to be no reason why he should not have told these\n\"tumultuous\" princes that if they interfered with Daniel they should\nbe flung into the lions' den. This would probably have altered their\nopinion as to pressing the royal infallibility of irreversible decrees.\n\nBut as this resource did not suggest itself to Darius, nothing could\nbe done except to cast Daniel into the den or \"pit\" of lions; but in\nsentencing him the king offers the prayer, \"May the God whom thou\nservest continually deliver thee!\"[479] Then a stone is laid over\nthe mouth of the pit, and, for the sake of double security, that even\nthe king may not have the power of tampering with it, it is sealed,\nnot only with his own seal, but also with that of his lords.[480]\n\nFrom the lion-pit the king went back to his palace, but only to spend\na miserable night. He could take no food.[481] No dancing-women were\nsummoned to his harem;[482] no sleep visited his eyelids. At the first\nglimpse of morning he rose,[483] and went with haste to the den--taking\nthe satraps with him, adds the LXX.--and cried with a sorrowful voice,\n\"O Daniel, servant of the living God, hath thy God whom thou servest\ncontinually been able to deliver thee from the lions?\"\n\nAnd the voice of the prophet answered, \"O king, live for ever! My\nGod sent His angel,[484] and shut the mouths of the lions, that they\nshould not destroy me: forasmuch as before Him innocency was found in\nme; and also before thee, O king, have I committed no offence.\"\n\nThereupon the happy king ordered that Daniel should be taken up out\nof the lion-pit; and he was found to be unhurt, because he believed\nin his God.\n\nWe would have gladly spared the touch of savagery with which the story\nends. The deliverance of Daniel made no difference in the guilt of\nhis accusers. What they had charged him with was a fact, and was a\ntransgression of the ridiculous decree which they had caused the king\nto pass. But his deliverance was regarded as a Divine judgment upon\nthem--as proof that vengeance should fall on them. Accordingly, not\nthey only, but, with the brutal solidarity of revenge and punishment\nwhich, in savage and semi-civilised races, confounds the innocent with\nthe guilty, their wives and even their children were also cast into\nthe den of lions, and they did not reach the bottom of the pit before\n\"the lions got hold of them and crushed all their bones.\"[485] They are\ndevoured, or caught, by the hungry lions in mid-air.\n\n\"Then King Darius wrote to all the nations, communities, and tongues\nwho dwell in the whole world, May your peace be multiplied! I make\na decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear\nbefore the God of Daniel: for He is the living God, and steadfast\nfor ever, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and\nHis dominion even unto the end. He delivereth and He rescueth, and\nHe worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth, who delivered\nDaniel from the power of the lions.\"\n\nThe language, as in Nebuchadrezzar's decrees, is purely\nScriptural.[486] What the Median mages and the Persian fire-worshippers\nwould think of such a decree, and whether it produced the slightest\neffect before it vanished without leaving a trace behind, are questions\nwith which the author of the story is not concerned.\n\nHe merely adds that Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and of\nCyrus the Persian.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[452] Lam. iv. 7.\n\n[453] Isa. xliv. 25, 26.\n\n[454] Isa. xliii. 2.\n\n[455] Ezek. xxxi. 2-15.\n\n[456] Prov. xvi. 18.\n\n[457] Isa. x. 33.\n\n[458] Isa. xlvii. 13.\n\n[459] Isa. xxi. 2.\n\n[460] The word is a cabalistic cryptogram--an instance of\n_Gematria_--for Babel.\n\n[461] Jer. li. 28-57.\n\n[462] Psalm lvii. 4.\n\n[463] Psalm lviii. 6.\n\n[464] Lam. iii. 53.\n\n[465] Isa. liv. 17.\n\n[466] _Sanhedrin_, f. 93, 1. See another story in _Vayyikra Rabba_,\nc. xix.\n\n[467] _Beresh\u00eeth Rabba_, \u00a7 68.\n\n[468] The LXX. says 127, and Josephus (_Antt._, X. xi. 4) says 360\n(comp. Esther i. 1, viii. 9, ix. 3). Under Darius, son of Hystaspes,\nthere were only twenty divisions of the empire (Herod., iii. 89).\n\n[469] Dan. vi. 2: \"Of whom Daniel was\"--not \"_first_,\" as in A.V.,\nbut \"_one_,\" R.V.\n\n[470] Matt. xix. 29.\n\n[471] 1 Cor. iv. 2.\n\n[472] Dan. vi. 6, _char'ggishoo_; Vulg., _surripuerunt regi_; A.V.\nmarg., \"came tumultuously.\" The word is found in the Targum in Ruth\ni. 19 (Bevan).\n\n[473] The den (_goob_ or _gubba_) seems to mean a vault. The Hebrew\nword for \"pit\" is _boor_.\n\n[474] See Layard, _Nin. and Bab._, i. 335, 447, 475; Smith, _Hist. of\nAssur-bani-pal_, xxiv.\n\n[475] The chamber was perhaps supposed to be a \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd on the roof. The\n\"kneeling\" in prayer (as in 1 Kings viii. 54; 2 Chron. vi. 13; Ezra ix.\n5) is in the East a less common attitude than standing. See 1 Sam. i.\n26; Mark xi. 25; Luke xviii. 11: but see Neh. viii. 6; Gen. xxiv. 26.\n\nThe Temple, and Jerusalem, was the _Kibleh_, or sacred direction of\ndevotion (1 Kings viii. 44; Ezek. viii. 16; Psalm v. 7, xxviii. 2,\nlv. 17, etc.).\n\n[476] Comp. Mark vi. 26.\n\n[477] Theodot., \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[478] Esther i. 19, viii. 8.\n\n[479] \"Courage, till to-morrow\" (\u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u1fd2 \u03b8\u03ac\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b5\u03b9), adds the LXX.\n\n[480] Comp. Lam. iii. 53. Seal-rings are very ancient (Herod., i.\n195). It is useless to speculate on the construction of the lion-pit.\nThe only opening mentioned seems to have been _at the top_; but there\nmust necessarily have been side-openings also.\n\n[481] Theodot., \u1f10\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f04\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Daniel, on the other hand, in the\napocryphal _Haggada_, gets his dinner miraculously from the Prophet\nHabakkuk.\n\n[482] Heb., _dachav\u0101n_; R.V., \"instruments of music\"; R.V. marg.,\n\"dancing-girls\"; Gesenius, Z\u00f6ckler, etc., \"concubines.\"\n\n[483] Theodot., \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u1fd2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03af.\n\n[484] Comp. Dan. iii. 8; Psalm xxxiv. 7-10; Acts xii. 11.\n\n[485] Comp. Esther ix. 13, 14; Josh. vii. 24; 2 Sam. xxi. 1-6. The\nLXX. modifies the savagery of the story by making the vengeance fall\nonly on the _two_ young men who were Daniel's fellow-presidents. But\ncomp. Herod., iii. 119; Am. Marcell., xxiii. 6; and \"Ob noxam unius\nomnis propinquitas perit,\" etc.\n\n[486] Psalm xxix. 1, x. 16, etc. Professor Fuller calls it \"a\n_Mazdean_ colouring in the language\"!\n\n\n\n\n                                PART III\n\n                  _THE PROPHETIC SECTION OF THE BOOK_\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n\n                    _VISION OF THE FOUR WILD BEASTS_\n\n\nWe now enter upon the second division of the Book of Daniel--the\napocalyptic. It is unquestionably inferior to the first part in\ngrandeur and importance as a whole, but it contains not a few great\nconceptions, and it was well adapted to inspire the hopes and arouse\nthe heroic courage of the persecuted Jews in the terrible days of\nAntiochus Epiphanes. Daniel now speaks in the first person,[487]\nwhereas throughout the historic section of the Book the third person\nhas been used.\n\nIn the form of apocalypse which he adopts he had already had partial\nprecursors in Ezekiel and Zechariah; but their symbolic visions were\nfar less detailed and developed--it may be added far more poetic and\nclassical--than his. And in later apocalypses, for which this served\nas a model, little regard is paid to the grotesqueness or incongruity\nof the symbols, if only the intended conception is conveyed. In no\nprevious writer of the grander days of Hebrew literature would such\nsymbols have been permitted as horns which have eyes and speak, or\nlions from which the wings are plucked, and which thereafter stand on\ntheir feet as a man, and have a man's heart given to them.\n\nThe vision is dated, \"In the first year of Belshazzar, King of\nBabylon.\" It therefore comes chronologically between the fourth\nand fifth chapters. On the pseudepigraphic view of the Book we may\nsuppose that this date is merely a touch of literary verisimilitude,\ndesigned to assimilate the prophecies to the form of those uttered\nby the ancient prophets; or perhaps it may be intended to indicate\nthat with three of the four empires--the Babylonian, the Median, and\nthe Persian--Daniel had a personal acquaintance. Beyond this we can\nsee no significance in the date; for the predictions which are here\nrecorded have none of that immediate relation to the year in which\nthey originated which we see in the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah.\nPerhaps the verse itself is a later guess or gloss, since there are\nslight variations in Theodotion and the LXX. Daniel, we are told,\nboth saw and wrote and narrated the dream.[488]\n\nIn the vision of the night he had seen the four winds of heaven\ntravailing, or bursting forth, on the great sea;[489] and from those\ntumultuous waves came four immense wild beasts, each unlike the other.\n\nThe first was a lion, with four eagles' wings. The wings were plucked\noff, and it then raised itself from the earth, stood on its feet like\na man, and a man's heart was given to it.\n\nThe second was like a bear, raising itself on one side, and having\nthree ribs between its teeth; and it is bidden to \"arise and devour\nmuch flesh.\"\n\nThe third is a leopard, or panther, with four wings and four heads,\nto which dominion is given.\n\nThe fourth--a yet more terrible monster, which is left undescribed,\nas though indescribable--has great devouring teeth of iron, and feet\nthat stamp and crush.[490] It has ten horns, and among them came up a\nlittle horn, before which three of the others are plucked up by the\nroots; and this horn has eyes, and a mouth speaking great things.\n\nThen the thrones were set for the Divine judges,[491] and the Ancient\nof Days seats Himself--His raiment as white snow, His hair as bright\nwool, His throne of flames, His wheels of burning fire. A stream of\ndazzling fire goes out before Him. Thousand thousands stand before\nHim; ten thousand times ten thousand minister to Him. The judgment is\nset; the books are opened. The fourth monster is then slain and burned\nbecause of the blaspheming horn; the other beasts are suffered to live\nfor a season and a time, but their dominion is taken away.[492]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut then, in the night vision, there came \"one even as a son of man\"\nwith the clouds of heaven, and is brought before the Ancient of Days,\nand receives from Him power and glory and a kingdom--an everlasting\ndominion, a kingdom that shall not be destroyed--over _all people_,\nnations, and languages.\n\nSuch is the vision, and its interpretation follows. The heart of\nDaniel \"is pierced in the midst of its sheath\" by what he has seen,\nand the visions of his head troubled him. Coming near to one of them\nthat stood by--the angelic ministrants of the Ancient of Days--he\nbegs for an interpretation of the vision.\n\nIt is given him with extreme brevity.\n\nThe four wild beasts represent four kings, the founders of four\nsuccessive kingdoms. But the ultimate and eternal dominion is not\nto be with them. It is to be given, till the eternities of the\neternities, to \"the holy ones of the Lofty One.\"[493]\n\nWhat follows is surely an indication of the date of the Book. Daniel\nis quite satisfied with this meagre interpretation, in which no\nsingle detail is given as regards the first three world-empires,\nwhich one would have supposed would chiefly interest the real Daniel.\nHis whole curiosity is absorbed in _a detail_ of the vision of the\n_fourth_ monster. It is all but inconceivable that a contemporary\nprophet should have felt no further interest in the destinies which\naffected the great golden Empire of Babylon under which he lived, nor\nin those of Media and Persia, which were already beginning to loom\nlarge on the horizon, and should have cared only for an incident in\nthe story of a fourth empire as yet unheard of, which was only to be\nfulfilled four centuries later. The interests of every other Hebrew\nprophet are always mainly absorbed, so far as earthly things are\nconcerned, in the immediate or not-far-distant future. That is true\nalso of the author of Daniel, if, as we have had reason to see, he\nwrote under the rule of the persecuting and blaspheming horn.\n\nIn his appeal for the interpretation of this symbol there are fresh\nparticulars about this horn which had eyes and spake very great\nthings. We are told that \"his look was more stout than his fellows\";\nand that \"he made war against the saints and prevailed against them,\nuntil the Ancient of Days came. Then judgment was given to the\nsaints, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.\"\n\nThe interpretation is that the fourth beast is an earth-devouring,\ntrampling, shattering kingdom, diverse from all kingdoms; its ten horns\nare ten kings that shall arise from it.[494] Then another king shall\narise, diverse from the first, who shall subdue three kings, shall\nspeak blasphemies, shall wear out the saints, and will strive to change\ntimes and laws. But after \"a time, two times, and a half,\"[495] the\njudgment shall sit, and he will be annihilated, and his dominion shall\nbe given for ever to the people of the saints of the Most High.\n\nSuch was the vision; such its interpretation; and there can be no\ndifficulty as to its general significance.\n\nI. That the four empires, and their founders, are not identical with\nthe four empires of the metal colossus in Nebuchadrezzar's dream,\nis an inference which, apart from dogmatic bias, would scarcely\nhave occurred to any unsophisticated reader. To the imagination of\nNebuchadrezzar, the heathen potentate, they would naturally present\nthemselves in their strength and towering grandeur, splendid and\nimpassive and secure, till the mysterious destruction smites them. To\nthe Jewish seer they present themselves in their cruel ferocity and\nheadstrong ambition as destroying wild beasts. The symbolism would\nnaturally occur to all who were familiar with the winged bulls and\nlions and other gigantic representations of monsters which decorated\nthe palace-walls of Nineveh and Babylon. Indeed, similar imagery had\nalready found a place on the prophetic page.[496]\n\nII. The turbulent sea, from which the immense beasts emerge after the\nstruggling of the four winds of heaven upon its surface, is the sea\nof nations.[497]\n\nIII. The first great beast is Nebuchadrezzar and the Babylonian\nEmpire.[498] There is nothing strange in the fact that there\nshould be a certain transfusion or overlapping of the symbols, the\nobject not being literary congruity, but the creation of a general\nimpression. He is represented as a lion, because lions were prevalent\nin Babylonia, and were specially prominent in Babylonian decorations.\nHis eagle-wings symbolise rapacity and swiftness.[499] But, according\nto the narrative already given, a change had come over the spirit of\nNebuchadrezzar in his latter days. That subduing and softening by the\ninfluence of a Divine power is represented by the plucking off of the\nlion's eagle-wings, and its fall to earth. But it was not left to lie\nthere in impotent degradation. It is lifted up from the earth, and\nhumanised, and made to stand on its feet as a man, and a man's heart\nis given to it.[500]\n\nIV. The bear, which places itself upon one side, is the Median\nEmpire, smaller than the Chaldean, as the bear is smaller and less\nformidable than the lion. The crouching on one side is obscure. It\nis explained by some as implying that it was lower in exaltation\nthan the Babylonian Empire; by others that \"it gravitated, as\nregards its power, only towards the countries west of the Tigris and\nEuphrates.\"[501] The meaning of the \"three ribs in its mouth\" is also\nuncertain. Some regard the number three as a vague round number;\nothers refer it to the three countries over which the Median dominion\nextended--Babylonia, Assyria, and Syria; others, less probably, to\nthe three chief cities. The command, \"Arise, devour much flesh,\"\nrefers to the prophecies of Median conquest,[502] and perhaps to\nuncertain historical reminiscences which confused \"Darius the Mede\"\nwith Darius the son of Hystaspes. Those who explain this monster as\nan emblem, not of the Median but of the Medo-Persian Empire, neglect\nthe plain indications of the Book itself, for the author regards the\nMedian and Persian Empires as distinct.[503]\n\nV. The leopard or panther represents the Persian kingdom.[504] It has\nfour wings on its back, to indicate how freely and swiftly it soared\nto the four quarters of the world. Its four heads indicate four\nkings. There were indeed twelve or thirteen kings of Persia between\nB.C. 536 and B.C. 333; but the author of the Book of Daniel, who of\ncourse had no books of history before him, only thinks of the four\nwho were most prominent in popular tradition--namely (as it would\nseem), Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, and Xerxes.[505] These are the only\nfour names which the writer knew, because they are the only ones\nwhich occur in Scripture. It is true that the Darius of Neh. xii.\n22 is not the Great Darius, son of Hystaspes, but Darius Codomannus\n(B.C. 424-404). But this fact may most easily have been overlooked in\nuncritical and unhistoric times. And \"power was given to it,\" for it\nwas far stronger than the preceding kingdom of the Medes.\n\nVI. The fourth monster won its chief aspect of terribleness from\nthe conquests of Alexander, which blazed over the East with such\nirresistible force and suddenness.[506] The great Macedonian, after his\nmassacres at Tyre, struck into the Eastern world the intense feeling of\nterror which we still can recognise in the narrative of Josephus. His\nrule is therefore symbolised by a monster diverse from all the beasts\nbefore it in its sudden leap out of obscurity, in the lightning-like\nrapidity of its flash from West to East, and in its instantaneous\ndisintegration into four separate kingdoms. It is with one only of\nthose four kingdoms of the Diadochi, the one which so terribly affected\nthe fortunes of the Holy Land, that the writer is predominantly\nconcerned--namely, the empire of the Seleucid kings. It is in that\nportion of the kingdom--namely, from the Euxine to the confines of\nArabia--that the ten horns arise which, we are told, symbolise ten\nkings. It seems almost certain that these ten kings are intended for:--\n\n                                                B.C.\n\n  1. Seleucus I. (_Nicator_)[507]             312-280\n  2. Antiochus I. (_Soter_)                   280-261\n  3. Antiochus II. (_Theos_)                  261-246\n  4. Seleucus II. (_Kallinikos_)              246-226\n  5. Seleucus III. (_Keraunos_)               226-223\n  6. Antiochus III. (_Megas_)                 223-187\n  7. Seleucus IV. (_Philopator_)              187-176\n\nThen followed the three kings (actual or potential) who were plucked\nup before the little horn: namely--\n\n                                                 B.C.\n\n   8. Demetrius                                  175\n   9. Heliodorus                                 176\n  10. Ptolemy Philometor                         181-146\n\nOf these three who succumbed to the machinations of Antiochus\nEpiphanes, or the little horn,[508] the first, Demetrius, was the\nonly son of Seleucus Philopator, and true heir to the crown. His\nfather sent him to Rome as a hostage, and released his brother\nAntiochus. So far from showing gratitude for this generosity,\nAntiochus, on the murder of Seleucus IV. (B.C. 175), usurped the\nrights of his nephew (Dan. xi. 21).\n\nThe second, Heliodorus, seeing that Demetrius the heir was out\nof the way, poisoned Seleucus Philopator, and himself usurped the\nkingdom.[509]\n\nPtolemy Philometor was the son of Cleopatra, the sister of Seleucus\nPhilopator. A large party was in favour of uniting Egypt and Persia\nunder his rule. But Antiochus Epiphanes ignored the compact which had\nmade C\u0153le-Syria and Ph\u0153nicia the dower of Cleopatra, and not only\nkept Philometor from his rights, but would have deprived him of Egypt\nalso but for the strenuous interposition of the Romans and their\nambassador M. Popilius L\u00e6nas.[510]\n\nWhen the three horns had thus fallen before him, the little\nhorn--Antiochus Epiphanes--sprang into prominence. The mention of\nhis \"eyes\" seems to be a reference to his shrewdness, cunning,\nand vigilance.[511] The \"mouth that spoke very great things\"[512]\nalludes to the boastful arrogance which led him to assume the title\nof Epiphanes, or \"the illustrious\"--which his scornful subjects\nchanged into Epimanes, \"the mad\"--and to his assumption even of\nthe title Theos, \"the god,\" on some of his coins.[513] His look\n\"was bigger than his fellows,\" for he inspired the kings of Egypt\nand other countries with terror. \"He made war against the saints,\"\nwith the aid of \"Jason and Menelaus, those ungodly wretches,\" and\n\"prevailed against them.\" He \"wore out the saints of the Most High,\"\nfor he took Jerusalem by storm, plundered it, slew eighty thousand\nmen, women, and children, took forty thousand prisoners, and sold\nas many into slavery (B.C. 170).[514] \"As he entered the sanctuary\nto plunder it, under the guidance of the apostate high priest\nMenelaus, he uttered words of blasphemy, and he carried off all the\ngold and silver he could find, including the golden table, altar of\nincense, candlesticks, and vessels, and even rifled the subterraneous\nvaults, so that he seized no less than eighteen hundred talents of\ngold.\"[515] He then sacrificed swine upon the altar, and sprinkled\nthe whole Temple with the broth.\n\nFurther than all this, \"_he thought to change times and laws_\"; and\nthey were \"_given into his hand until a time, and two times, and\na half_.\" For he made a determined attempt to put down the Jewish\nfeasts, the Sabbath, circumcision, and all the most distinctive\nJewish ordinances.[516] In B.C. 167, two years after his cruel\ndevastation of the city, he sent Apollonius, his chief collector of\ntribute, against Jerusalem, with an army of twenty-two thousand men.\nOn the first Sabbath after his arrival, Apollonius sent his soldiers\nto massacre all the men whom they met in the streets, and to seize\nthe women and children as slaves. He occupied the castle on Mount\nZion, and prevented the Jews from attending the public ordinances\nof their sanctuary. Hence in June B.C. 167 the daily sacrifice\nceased, and the Jews fled for their lives from the Holy City.\nAntiochus then published an edict forbidding all his subjects in\nSyria and elsewhere--even the Zoroastrians in Armenia and Persia--to\nworship any gods, or acknowledge any religion but his.[517] The\nJewish sacred books were burnt, and not only the Samaritans but\nmany Jews apostatised, while others hid themselves in mountains and\ndeserts.[518] He sent an old philosopher named Athen\u00e6us to instruct\nthe Jews in the Greek religion, and to enforce its observance. He\ndedicated the Temple to Zeus Olympios, and built on the altar of\nJehovah a smaller altar for sacrifice to Zeus, to whom he must also\nhave erected a statue. This heathen altar was set up on Kisleu\n(December) 15, and the heathen sacrifice began on Kisleu 25. All\nobservance of the Jewish Law was now treated as a capital crime. The\nJews were forced to sacrifice in heathen groves at heathen altars,\nand to walk, crowned with ivy, in Bacchic processions. Two women who\nhad braved the despot's wrath by circumcising their children were\nflung from the Temple battlements into the vale below.[519]\n\nThe triumph of this blasphemous and despotic savagery was arrested,\nfirst by the irresistible force of determined martyrdom which\npreferred death to unfaithfulness, and next by the armed resistance\nevoked by the heroism of Mattathias, the priest at Modin. When\nApelles visited the town, and ordered the Jews to sacrifice,\nMattathias struck down with his own hand a Jew who was preparing to\nobey. Then, aided by his strong heroic sons, he attacked Apelles,\nslew him and his soldiers, tore down the idolatrous altar, and with\nhis sons and adherents fled into the wilderness, where they were\njoined by many of the Jews.\n\nThe news of this revolt brought Antiochus to Palestine in B.C. 166,\nand among his other atrocities he ordered the execution by torture of\nthe venerable scribe Eleazar, and of the pious mother with her seven\nsons. In spite of all his efforts the party of the _Chasid\u00eem_ grew\nin numbers and in strength. When Mattathias died, Judas the Maccabee\nbecame their leader, and his brother Simon their counsellor.[520]\nWhile Antiochus was celebrating his mad and licentious festival at\nDaphne, Judas inflicted a severe defeat on Apollonius, and won other\nbattles, which made Antiochus vow in an access of fury that he would\nexterminate the nation (Dan. xi. 44). But he found himself bankrupt,\nand the Persians and Armenians were revolting from him in disgust. He\ntherefore sent Lysias as his general to Jud\u00e6a, and Lysias assembled\nan immense army of forty thousand foot and seven thousand horse, to\nwhom Judas could only oppose six thousand men.[521] Lysias pitched\nhis camp at Beth-shur, south of Jerusalem. There Judas attacked him\nwith irresistible valour and confidence, slew five thousand of his\nsoldiers, and drove the rest to flight.\n\nLysias retired to Antioch, intending to renew the invasion next year.\nThereupon Judas and his army recaptured Jerusalem, and restored and\ncleansed and reconsecrated the dilapidated and desecrated sanctuary.\nHe made a new shewbread-table, incense-altar, and candlestick of gold\nin place of those which Antiochus had carried off, and new vessels of\ngold, and a new veil before the Holiest Place. All this was completed\non Kisleu 25, B.C. 165, about the time of the winter solstice, \"on\nthe same day of the year on which, three years before, it had been\nprofaned by Antiochus, and just three years and a half--'a time, two\ntimes, and half a time'--after the city and Temple had been desolated\nby Apollonius.\"[522] They began the day by renewing the sacrifices,\nkindling the altar and the candlestick by pure fire struck by flints.\nThe whole law of the Temple service continued thenceforward without\ninterruption till the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. It was\na feast in commemoration of this dedication--called the Enc\u00e6nia and\n\"the Lights\"--which Christ honoured by His presence at Jerusalem.[523]\n\nThe neighbouring nations, when they heard of this revolt of the\nJews, and its splendid success, proposed to join with Antiochus for\ntheir extermination. But meanwhile the king, having been shamefully\nrepulsed in his sacrilegious attack on the Temple of Artemis at\nElymais, retired in deep chagrin to Ecbatana, in Media. It was there\nthat he heard of the Jewish successes and set out to chastise\nthe rebels. On his way he heard of the recovery of Jerusalem, the\ndestruction of his heathen altars, and the purification of the\nTemple. The news flung him into one of those paroxysms of fury to\nwhich he was liable, and, breathing out threatenings and slaughter,\nhe declared that he would turn Jerusalem into one vast cemetery for\nthe whole Jewish race. Suddenly smitten with a violent internal\nmalady, he would not stay his course, but still urged his charioteer\nto the utmost speed.[524] In consequence of this the chariot was\noverturned, and he was flung violently to the ground, receiving\nsevere injuries. He was placed in a litter, but, unable to bear the\nagonies caused by its motion, he stopped at Tab\u00e6, in the mountains of\nPar\u00e6tacene, on the borders of Persia and Babylonia, where he died,\nB.C. 164, in very evil case, half mad with the furies of a remorseful\nconscience.[525] The Jewish historians say that, before his death,\nhe repented, acknowledged the crimes he had committed against the\nJews, and vowed that he would repair them if he survived. The stories\nof his death resemble those of the deaths of Herod, of Galerius, of\nPhilip II., and of other bitter persecutors of the saints of God.\nJudas the Maccabee, who had overthrown his power in Palestine, died\nat Eleasa in B.C. 161, after a series of brilliant victories.\n\nSuch were the fortunes of the king whom the writer shadows forth\nunder the emblem of the little horn with human eyes and a mouth\nwhich spake blasphemies, whose power was to be made transitory, and\nto be annihilated and destroyed unto the end.[526] And when this wild\nbeast was slain, and its body given to the burning fire, the rest of\nthe beasts were indeed to be deprived of their splendid dominions,\nbut a respite of life is given them, and they are suffered to endure\nfor a time and a period.[527]\n\nBut the eternal life, and the imperishable dominion, which were\ndenied to them, are given to another in the epiphany of the Ancient\nof Days. The vision of the seer is one of a great scene of judgment.\nThrones are set for the heavenly assessors, and the Almighty appears\nin snow-white raiment, and on His chariot-throne of burning flame\nwhich flashes round Him like a vast photosphere.[528] The books of\neverlasting record are opened before the glittering faces of the\nmyriads of saints who accompany Him, and the fiery doom is passed on\nthe monstrous world-powers who would fain usurp His authority.[529]\n\nBut who is the \"one even as a son of man,\" who \"comes with the clouds\nof heaven,\" and who \"is brought before the Ancient of Days,\"[530] to\nwhom is given the imperishable dominion? That he is not an angel\nappears from the fact that he seems to be separate from all the ten\nthousand times ten thousand who stand around the cherubic chariot. He\nis not a man, but something more. In this respect he resembles the\nangels described in Dan. viii. 15, x. 16-18. He has \"the appearance\nof a man,\" and is \"like the similitude of the sons of men.\"[531]\n\nWe should naturally answer, in accordance with the multitude of\nancient and modern commentators both Jewish and Christian, that\nthe Messiah is intended;[532] and, indeed, our Lord alludes to the\nprophecy in Matt. xxvi. 64. That the vision is meant to indicate the\nestablishment of the Messianic theocracy cannot be doubted. But if\nwe follow the interpretation given by the angel himself in answer\nto Daniel's entreaty, the personality of the Messiah seems to be at\nleast somewhat subordinate or indistinct. For the interpretation,\nwithout mentioning any person, seems to point only to the saints of\nIsrael who are to inherit and maintain that Divine kingdom which has\nbeen already thrice asserted and prophesied. It is the \"holy ones\"\n(_Qadd\u00eesh\u00een_), \"the holy ones of the Most High\" (_Qadd\u00eesh\u00ee El\u00eeon\u00een_),\nupon whom the never-ending sovereignty is conferred;[533] and who\nthese are cannot be misunderstood, for they are the very same as\nthose against whom the little horn has been engaged in war.[534]\nThe Messianic kingdom is here predominantly represented as the\nspiritual supremacy of the chosen people. Neither here, nor in ii.\n44, nor in xii. 3, does the writer separately indicate any Davidic\nking, or priest upon his throne, as had been already done by so many\nprevious prophets.[535] This vision does not seem to have brought\ninto prominence the rule of any Divinely Incarnate Christ over the\nkingdom of the Highest. In this respect the interpretation of the\n\"one even as a son of man\" comes upon us as a surprise, and seems to\nindicate that the true interpretation of that element of the vision\nis that the kingdom of the saints is there personified; so that\nas wild beasts were appropriate emblems of the world-powers, the\nreasonableness and sanctity of the saintly theocracy are indicated by\na human form, which has its origin in the clouds of heaven, not in\nthe miry and troubled sea. This is the view of the Christian father\nEphr\u00e6m Syrus, as well as of the Jewish exegete Abn Ezra; and it is\nsupported by the fact that in other apocryphal books of the later\nepoch, as in the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Jubilees, the\nMessianic hope is concentrated in the conception that the holy nation\nis to have the dominance over the Gentiles. At any rate, it seems\nthat, if truth is to guide us rather than theological prepossession,\nwe must take the significance of the writer, not from the emblems of\nthe vision, but from the divinely imparted interpretation of it; and\nthere the figure of \"one as a son of man\" is persistently (vv. 18,\n22, 27) explained to stand, not for the Christ Himself, but for \"the\nholy ones of the Most High,\"[536] whose dominion Christ's coming\nshould inaugurate and secure.\n\nThe chapter closes with the words: \"Here is the end of the matter. As\nfor me, Daniel, my thoughts much troubled me, and my brightness was\nchanged in me: but I kept the matter in my heart.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[487] Except in the heading of chap. x.\n\n[488] In the opinion of Lagarde and others this chapter--which is\nnot noticed by Josephus, and which Meinhold thinks cannot have been\nwritten by the author of chap. ii., since it says nothing of the\nsufferings or deliverance of Israel--did not belong to the original\nform of the Book. Lagarde thinks that it was written A.D. 69, after\nthe persecution of the Christians by Nero.\n\n[489] St. Ephr\u00e6m Syrus says, \"The sea is the world.\" Isa. xvii. 12,\nxxvii. 1, xxxii. 2. But compare Dan. vii. 17; Ezek. xxix. 3; Rev.\nxiii. 1, xvii. 1-8, xxi. 1.\n\n[490] In the vision of the colossus in ii. 41-43 stress is laid on\nthe division of the fourth empire into stronger and weaker elements\n(iron and clay). That point is here passed over.\n\n[491] A.V., \"the thrones were cast down.\"\n\n[492] In ii. 35, 44, the four empires are represented as finally\ndestroyed.\n\n[493] A.V. marg., \"high ones\"--_i.e._, things or places.\n\n[494] Not kingdoms, as in viii. 8.\n\n[495] Comp. Rev. xii. 14; Luke iv. 25; James v. 17.\n\n[496] Isa. xxvii. 1, li. 9; Ezek. xxix. 3, xxxii. 2.\n\n[497] Comp. Job xxxviii. 16, 17; Isa. viii. 7, xvii. 12.\n\n[498] Comp. Dan. ii. 38. Jeremiah had likened Nebuchadrezzar both to\nthe lion (iv. 7, xlix. 19, etc.) and to the eagle (xlviii. 40, xlix.\n22). Ezekiel had compared the king (xvii. 3), and Habakkuk his armies\n(i. 8), as also Jeremiah (iv. 13; Lam. iv. 19), to the eagle (Pusey, p.\n690). See too Layard, _Nin. and Bab._, ii. 460. For other beast-symbols\nsee Isa. xxvii. 1, li. 9; Ezek. xxix. 3; Psalm lxxiv. 13.\n\n[499] Comp. Jer. iv. 7, 13, xlix. 16; Ezek. xvii. 3, 12; Hab. i. 8;\nLam. iv. 19.\n\n[500] The use of _en\u00f4sh_--not _eesh_--indicates chastening and weakness.\n\n[501] Ewald.\n\n[502] Isa. xiii. 17; Jer. li. 11, 28. Aristotle, _H. N._, viii.\n5, calls the bear \u03c0\u03ac\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \"all-devouring.\" A bear appears as a\ndream-symbol in an Assyrian book of auguries (Lenormant, _Magie_, 492).\n\n[503] Dan. v. 28, 31, vi. 8, 12, 15, 28, viii. 20, ix. 1, xi. 1.\n\n[504] The composite beast of Rev. xiii. 2 combines leopard, bear, and\nlion.\n\n[505] Comp. viii. 4-8.\n\n[506] Battle of the Granicus, B.C. 334; Battle of Issus, 333; Siege\nof Tyre, 332; Battle of Arbela, 331; Death of Darius, 330. Alexander\ndied B.C. 323.\n\n[507] This was the interpretation given by the great father Ephr\u00e6m\nSyrus in the first century. Hitzig, Kuenen, and others count from\nAlexander the Great, and omit Ptolemy Philometor.\n\n[508] Dan. xi. 21.\n\n[509] Appian, _Syr._, 45; Liv., xli. 24. The story of his attempt to\nrob the Temple at Jerusalem, rendered so famous by the great picture\nof Raphael in the Vatican _stanze_, is not mentioned by Josephus,\nbut only in 2 Macc. iii. 24-40. In 4 Macc. it is told, without the\nmiracle, of Apollonius. There can be little doubt that something of\nthe kind happened, but it was perhaps due to an imposture of the\nJewish high priest.\n\n[510] Porphyry interpreted the three kings who succumbed to the\nlittle horn to be Ptolemy Philometor, Ptolemy Euergetes II., and\nArtaxias, King of Armenia. The critics who begin the ten kings with\nAlexander the Great count Seleucus IV. (Philopator) as one of the\nthree who were supplanted by Antiochus. Von Gutschmid counts as\none of the three a younger brother of Demetrius, said to have been\nmurdered by Antiochus (M\u00fcller, _Fr. Hist. Gr\u00e6c._, iv. 558).\n\n[511] Comp. viii. 23.\n\n[512] Comp. \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1 (Rev. xiii. 5); Hom., _Od._, xvi. 243.\n\n[513] Comp. xi. 36.\n\n[514] Jos., _B. J._, I. i. 2, VI. x. 1. In _Antt._, XII. v. 3,\nJosephus says he took Jerusalem by stratagem.\n\n[515] Jahn, _Hebr. Commonwealth_, \u00a7 xciv.; Ewald, _Hist. of Isr._, v.\n293-300.\n\n[516] 2 Macc. iv. 9-15: \"The priests had no courage to serve any more\nat the altar, but despising the Temple, and neglecting the sacrifices,\nhastened to be partakers of the unlawful allowance in the place of\nexercise, after the game of Discus ... not setting by the honours of\ntheir fathers, but liking the glory of the Grecians best of all.\"\n\n[517] 1 Macc. i. 29-40; 2 Macc. v. 24-26; Jos., _Antt._, XII. v. 4.\nComp. Dan. xi. 30, 31. See Sch\u00fcrer, i. 155 ff.\n\n[518] Jerome, _Comm. in Dan._, viii., ix.; Tac., _Hist._, v. 8; 1\nMacc. i. 41-53; 2 Macc. v. 27, vi. 2; Jos., _Antt._, XII. v. 4.\n\n[519] 1 Macc. ii. 41-64, iv. 54; 2 Macc. vi. 1-9, x. 5; Jos.,\n_Antt._, XII. v. 4; Dan. xi. 31.\n\n[520] Maccabee perhaps means \"the Hammerer\" (comp. the names Charles\n_Martel_ and _Malleus h\u00e6reticorum_). Simeon was called _Tadsh\u00ee_, \"he\nincreases\" (? Gk., \u0398\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03c2).\n\n[521] The numbers vary in the records.\n\n[522] Prideaux, _Connection_, ii. 212. Comp. Rev. xii. 14, xi. 2, 3.\n\n[523] John x. 22.\n\n[524] On the death of Antiochus see 1 Macc. vi. 8; 2 Macc. ix.;\nPolybius, xxxi. 11; Jos., _Antt._, XII. ix. 1, 2.\n\n[525] Polybius, _De Virt. et Vit._, Exc. Vales, p. 144; Q. Curtius,\nv. 13; Strabo, xi. 522; Appian, _Syriaca_, xlvi. 80; 1 Macc. vi.; 2\nMacc. ix.; Jos., _Antt._, XII. ix. 1; Prideaux, ii. 217; Jahn, _Hebr.\nCommonwealth_ \u00a7 xcvi.\n\n[526] Dan. vii. 26.\n\n[527] Dan. vii. 12. This is only explicable at all--and then not\nclearly--on the supposition that the fourth beast represents\nAlexander and the Diadochi. See even Pusey, p. 78.\n\n[528] Ezek. i. 26; Psalm l. 3. Comp. the adaptation of this vision in\nEnoch xlvi. 1-3.\n\n[529] Isa. l. 11, lx. 10-12, lxvi. 24, Joel iii. 1, 2. See Rev. i.\n13. In the Gospels it is not \"a son of man,\" but generally \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5. Comp. Matt. xvi. 13, xxiv. 30; John xii. 34; Acts vii. 56;\nJustin, _Dial. c. Tryph._, 31.\n\n[530] Comp. Mark xiv. 62; Rev. i. 7; Hom., _Il._, v. 867, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[531] Comp. Ezek. i. 26.\n\n[532] It is so understood by the Book of Enoch; the Talmud\n(_Sanhedrin_, f. 98, 1); the early father Justin Martyr, _Dial. c.\nTryph._, 31, etc. Some of the Jewish commentators (_e.g._, Abn Ezra)\nunderstood it of the people of God, and so Hofmann, Hitzig, Meinhold,\netc. See Behrmann, _Dan._, p. 48.\n\n[533] Dan. iv. 3, 34, vi. 26. See Sch\u00fcrer, ii. 247; Wellhausen, _Die\nPharis. u. Sadd._, 24 ff.\n\n[534] Dan. vii. 16, 22, 23, 27.\n\n[535] Zech. ix. 9.\n\n[536] See Sch\u00fcrer, ii. 138-187, \"The Messianic Hope\": he refers to\nEcclus. xxxii. 18, 19, xxxiii. 1-11, xl. 13, l. 24; Judith xvi. 12;\n2 Macc. ii. 18; Baruch ii. 27-35; Tobit xiii, 11-18; Wisdom iii.\n8, v. 1, etc. The Messianic King appears more distinctly in _Orac.\nSibyll._, iii.; in parts of the Book of Enoch (of which, however,\nxlv.-lvii. are of unknown date); and the Psalms of Solomon. In Philo\nwe seem to have traces of the King as well as of the kingdom. See\nDrummond, _The Jewish Messiah_, pp. 196 ff.; Stanton, _The Jewish and\nChristian Messiah_, pp. 109-118.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n\n                       _THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT_\n\n\nThis vision is dated as having occurred in the third year of\nBelshazzar; but it is not easy to see the significance of the date,\nsince it is almost exclusively occupied with the establishment of the\nGreek Empire, its dissolution into the kingdoms of the Diadochi, and\nthe godless despotism of King Antiochus Epiphanes.\n\nThe seer imagines himself to be in the palace of Shushan: \"As I\nbeheld I was in the castle of Shushan.\"[537] It has been supposed by\nsome that Daniel was really there upon some business connected with\nthe kingdom of Babylon. But this view creates a needless difficulty.\nShushan, which the Greeks called Susa, and the Persians Shush (now\nShushter), \"the city of the lily,\" was \"the palace\" or fortress\n(_b\u00eerah_[538]) of the Ach\u00e6menid kings of Persia, and it is most\nunlikely that a chief officer of the kingdom of Babylon should have\nbeen there in the third year of the imaginary King Belshazzar, just\nwhen Cyrus was on the eve of capturing Babylon without a blow. If\nBelshazzar is some dim reflection of the son of Nabunaid (though\nhe never reigned), Shushan was not then subject to the King of\nBabylonia. But the ideal presence of the prophet there, in vision, is\nanalogous to the presence of the exile Ezekiel in Jerusalem (Ezek.\nxl. 1); and these transferences of the prophets to the scenes of\ntheir operation were sometimes even regarded as bodily, as in the\nlegend of Habakkuk taken to the lions' den to support Daniel.\n\nShushan is described as being in the province of Elam or Elymais,\nwhich may be here used as a general designation of the district in\nwhich Susiana was included. The prophet imagines himself as standing\nby the river-basin (_oob\u00e2l_[539]) of the Ulai, which shows that we\nmust take the words \"in the castle of Shushan\" in an ideal sense;\nfor, as Ewald says, \"it is only in a dream that images and places are\nchanged so rapidly.\" The Ulai is the river called by the Greeks the\nEul\u00e6us, now the Kar\u00fbn.[540]\n\nShushan is said by Pliny and Arrian to have been on the river Eul\u00e6us,\nand by Herodotus to have been on the banks of\n\n                  \"Choaspes, amber stream,\n            The drink of none but kings.\"\n\nIt seems now to have been proved that the Ulai was merely a branch of\nthe Choaspes or Kerkhah.[541]\n\nLifting up his eyes, Daniel sees a ram standing eastward of the\nriver-basin. It has two lofty horns, the loftier of the two being the\nlater in origin. It butts westward, northward, and southward, and\ndoes great things.[542] But in the midst of its successes a he-goat,\nwith a conspicuous horn between its eyes,[543] comes from the West\nso swiftly over the face of all the earth that it scarcely seems\neven to touch the ground,[544] and runs upon the ram in the fury of\nhis strength,[545] conquering and trampling upon him, and smashing\nin pieces his two horns. But his impetuosity was short-lived, for\nthe great horn was speedily broken, and four others[546] rose in its\nplace towards the four winds of heaven. Out of these four horns shot\nup a puny horn,[547] which grew exceedingly great towards the South,\nand towards the East, and towards \"the Glory\"--_i.e._, towards the\nHoly Land.[548] It became great even to the host of heaven, and cast\ndown some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and trampled\non them.[549] He even behaved proudly against the prince of the\nhost, took away from him[550] \"the daily\" (sacrifice), polluted the\ndismantled sanctuary with sacrilegious arms,[551] and cast the truth\nto the ground and prospered. Then \"one holy one called to another\nand asked, For how long is the vision of the daily [sacrifice], and\nthe horrible sacrilege, that thus both the sanctuary and host are\nsurrendered to be trampled underfoot?\"[552] And the answer is, \"Until\ntwo thousand three hundred _'erebh-b\u00f4qer_, 'evening-morning'; then\nwill the sanctuary be justified.\"\n\nDaniel sought to understand the vision, and immediately there stood\nbefore him one in the semblance of a man, and he hears the distant\nvoice of some one[553] standing between the Ulai--_i.e._, between its\ntwo banks,[554] or perhaps between its two branches, the Eul\u00e6us and\nthe Choaspes--who called aloud to \"Gabriel.\" The archangel Gabriel\nis here first mentioned in Scripture.[555] \"Gabriel,\" cried the\nvoice, \"explain to him what he has seen.\" So Gabriel came and stood\nbeside him; but he was terrified, and fell on his face. \"Observe,\nthou son of man,\"[556] said the angel to him; \"for unto the time of\nthe end is the vision.\" But since Daniel still lay prostrate on his\nface, and sank into a swoon, the angel touched him, and raised him\nup, and said that the great wrath was only for a fixed time, and he\nwould tell him what would happen at the end of it.\n\nThe two-horned ram, he said, the _Baal-kerana\u00eem_, or \"lord of two\nhorns,\" represents the King of Media and Persia; the shaggy goat is\nthe Empire of Greece; and the great horn is its first king--Alexander\nthe Great.[557]\n\nThe four horns rising out of the broken great horn are four inferior\nkingdoms. In one of these, sacrilege would culminate in the person of\na king of bold face,[558] and skilled in cunning, who would become\npowerful, though not by his own strength.[559] He would prosper and\ndestroy mighty men and the people of the holy ones,[560] and deceit\nwould succeed by his double-dealing. He would contend against the\nPrince of princes,[561] and yet without a hand would he be broken in\npieces.\n\nSuch is the vision and its interpretation; and though there is here\nand there a difficulty in the details and translation, and though\nthere is a necessary crudeness in the emblematic imagery, the general\nsignificance of the whole is perfectly clear.\n\nThe scene of the vision is ideally placed in Shushan, because the\nJews regarded it as the royal capital of the Persian dominion, and\nthe dream begins with the overthrow of the Medo-Persian Empire.[562]\nThe ram is a natural symbol of power and strength, as in Isa. lx. 7.\nThe two horns represent the two divisions of the empire, of which the\nlater--the Persian--is the loftier and the stronger. It is regarded as\nbeing already the lord of the East, but it extends its conquests by\nbutting westward over the Tigris into Europe, and southwards to Egypt\nand Africa, and northwards towards Scythia, with magnificent success.\n\nThe he-goat is Greece.[563] Its one great horn represents \"the great\nEmathian conqueror.\"[564] So swift was the career of Alexander's\nconquests, that the goat seems to speed along without so much as\ntouching the ground.[565] With irresistible fury, in the great\nbattles of the Granicus (B.C. 334), Issus (B.C. 333), and Arbela\n(B.C. 331), he stamps to pieces the power of Persia and of its\nking, Darius Codomannus.[566] In this short space of time Alexander\nconquers Syria, Ph\u0153nicia, Cyprus, Tyre, Gaza, Egypt, Babylonia,\nPersia, Media, Hyrcania, Aria, and Arachosia. In B.C. 330 Darius was\nmurdered by Bessus, and Alexander became lord of his kingdom. In B.C.\n329 the Greek King conquered Bactria, crossed the Oxus and Jaxartes,\nand defeated the Scythians. In B.C. 328 he conquered Sogdiana. In\nB.C. 327 and 326 he crossed the Indus, Hydaspes, and Akesines,\nsubdued Northern and Western India, and--compelled by the discontent\nof his troops to pause in his career of victory--sailed down the\nHydaspes and Indus to the Ocean. He then returned by land through\nGedrosia, Karmania, Persia, and Susiana to Babylon.\n\nThere the great horn is suddenly broken without hand.[567] Alexander\nin B.C. 323, after a reign of twelve years and eight months, died\nas a fool dieth, of a fever brought on by fatigue, exposure,\ndrunkenness, and debauchery. He was only thirty-two years old.\n\nThe dismemberment of his empire immediately followed. In B.C. 322 its\nvast extent was divided among his principal generals. Twenty-two years\nof war ensued; and in B.C. 301, after the defeat of Antigonus and his\nson Demetrius at the Battle of Ipsus, four horns are visible in the\nplace of one. The battle was won by the confederacy of Cassander,\nLysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus, and they founded four kingdoms.\nCassander ruled in Greece and Macedonia; Lysimachus in Asia Minor;\nPtolemy in Egypt, C\u0153le-Syria, and Palestine; Seleucus in Upper Asia.\n\nWith one only of the four kingdoms, and with one only of its kings,\nis the vision further concerned--with the kingdom of the Seleucid\u00e6,\nand with the eighth king of the dynasty, Antiochus Epiphanes. In\nthis chapter, however, a brief sketch only of him is furnished. Many\ndetails of the minutest kind are subsequently added.\n\nHe is called \"a puny horn,\" because, in his youth, no one could\nhave anticipated his future greatness. He was only a younger son\nof Antiochus III. (the Great). When Antiochus III. was defeated in\nthe Battle of Magnesia under Mount Sipylus (B.C. 190), his loss was\nterrible. Fifty thousand foot and four thousand horse were slain on\nthe battlefield, and fourteen hundred were taken prisoners. He was\nforced to make peace with the Romans, and to give them hostages, one\nof whom was Antiochus the Younger, brother of Seleucus, who was heir\nto the throne. Antiochus for thirteen years languished miserably as a\nhostage at Rome. His father, Antiochus the Great, was either slain in\nB.C. 187 by the people of Elymais, after his sacrilegious plundering\nof the Temple of Jupiter-Belus;[568] or murdered by some of his\nown attendants whom he had beaten during a fit of drunkenness.[569]\nSeleucus Philopator succeeded him, and after having reigned for\nthirteen years, wished to see his brother Antiochus again. He\ntherefore sent his son Demetrius in exchange for him, perhaps\ndesiring that the boy, who was then twelve years old, should enjoy\nthe advantage of a Roman education, or thinking that Antiochus would\nbe of more use to him in his designs against Ptolemy Philometor,\nthe child-king of Egypt. When Demetrius was on his way to Rome, and\nAntiochus had not yet reached Antioch, Heliodorus the treasurer\nseized the opportunity to poison Seleucus and usurp the crown.\n\nThe chances, therefore, of Antiochus seemed very forlorn. But he\nwas a man of ability, though with a taint of folly and madness\nin his veins. By allying himself with Eumenes, King of Pergamum,\nas we shall see hereafter, he suppressed Heliodorus, secured the\nkingdom, and \"becoming very great,\" though only by fraud, cruelty,\nand stratagem, assumed the title of Epiphanes \"the Illustrious.\" He\nextended his power \"towards the South\" by intriguing and warring\nagainst Egypt and his young nephew, Ptolemy Philometor;[570]\nand \"towards the Sunrising\" by his successes in the direction\nof Media and Persia;[571] and towards \"the Glory\" or \"Ornament\"\n(_hatstseb\u00ee_)--_i.e._, the Holy Land.[572] Inflated with insolence,\nhe now set himself against the stars, the host of heaven--_i.e._,\nagainst the chosen people of God and their leaders. He cast down and\ntrampled on them,[573] and defied the Prince of the host; for he\n\n            \"Not e'en against the Holy One of heaven\n             Refrained his tongue blasph\u00e9mous.\"\n\nHis chief enormity was the abolition of \"the daily\"\n(_tam\u00eed_)--_i.e._, the sacrifice daily offered in the Temple; and the\ndesecration of the sanctuary itself by violence and sacrilege, which\nwill be more fully set forth in the next chapters. He also seized and\ndestroyed the sacred books of the Jews. As he forbade the reading of\nthe Law--of which the daily lesson was called the _Parashah_--there\nbegan from this time the custom of selecting a lesson from the\nProphets, which was called the _Haphtarah_.[574]\n\nIt was natural to make one of the holy ones, who are supposed to\nwitness this horrible iniquity,[575] inquire how long it was to be\npermitted. The enigmatic answer is, \"Until an evening-morning two\nthousand three hundred.\"\n\nIn the further explanation given to Daniel by Gabriel a few more\ntouches are added.\n\nAntiochus Epiphanes is described as a king \"bold of visage, and\nskilled in enigmas.\" His boldness is sufficiently illustrated by\nhis many campaigns and battles, and his braggart insolence has been\nalready alluded to in vii. 8. His skill in enigmas is illustrated\nby his dark and tortuous diplomacy, which was exhibited in all his\nproceedings,[576] and especially in the whole of his dealings with\nEgypt, in which country he desired to usurp the throne from his\nyoung nephew Ptolemy Philometor. The statement that \"he will have\nmighty strength, but not by his own strength,\" may either mean that\nhis transient prosperity was due only to the permission of God, or\nthat his successes were won rather by cunning than by prowess. After\nan allusion to his cruel persecution of the holy people, Gabriel\nadds that \"without a hand shall he be broken in pieces\"; in other\nwords, his retribution and destruction shall be due to no human\nintervention, but will come from God Himself.[577]\n\nDaniel is bidden to hide the vision for many days--a sentence which\nis due to the literary plan of the Book; and he is assured that the\nvision concerning the \"evening-morning\" was true. He adds that the\nvision exhausted and almost annihilated him; but, afterwards, he\narose and did the king's business. He was silent about the vision,\nfor neither he nor any one else understood it.[578] Of course, had\nthe real date of the chapter been in the reign of Belshazzar, it was\nwholly impossible that either the seer or any one else should have\nbeen able to attach any significance to it.[579]\n\nEmphasis is evidently attached to the \"two thousand three hundred\nevening-morning\" during which the desolation of the sanctuary is to\ncontinue.\n\nWhat does the phrase \"evening-morning\" (_'erebh-b\u00f4qer_) mean?\n\nIn ver. 26 it is called \"the vision concerning the evening and the\nmorning.\"\n\nDoes \"evening-morning\" mean a _whole_ day, like the Greek \u03bd\u03c5\u03c7\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd,\nor _half_ a day? The expression is doubly perplexing. If the writer\nmeant \"days,\" why does he not say \"_days_,\" as in xii. 11, 12?[580]\nAnd why, in any case, does he here use the solecism _'erebh-b\u00f4qer_\n(_Abendmorgen_), and not, as in ver. 26, \"evening _and_ morning\"?\nDoes the expression mean two thousand three hundred days? or eleven\nhundred and fifty days?\n\nIt is a natural supposition that the time is meant to correspond with\nthe three years and a half (\"a time, two times, and half a time\")\nof vii. 25. But here again all certainty of detail is precluded by\nour ignorance as to the exact length of years by which the writer\nreckoned; and how he treated the month _Ve-adar_, a month of thirty\ndays, which was intercalated once in every six years.\n\nSupposing that he allowed an intercalary fifteen days for three and\na half years, and took the Babylonian reckoning of twelve months\nof thirty days, then three and a half years gives us twelve hundred\nand seventy-five days, or, omitting any allowance for intercalation,\ntwelve hundred and sixty days.\n\nIf, then, \"two thousand three hundred evening-morning\" means two\nthousand three hundred _half_ days, we have _one hundred and ten days\ntoo many_ for the three and a half years.\n\nAnd if the phrase means two thousand three hundred _full_ days, that\ngives us (counting thirty intercalary days for _Ve-adar_) too little\nfor seven years by two hundred and fifty days. Some see in this a\nmystic intimation that the period of chastisement shall for the elect's\nsake be shortened.[581] Some commentators reckon seven years roughly,\nfrom the elevation of Menelaus to the high-priesthood (Kisleu, B.C.\n168: 2 Macc. v. 11) to the victory of Judas Maccab\u00e6us over Nicanor at\nAdasa, March, B.C. 161 (1 Macc. vii. 25-50; 2 Macc. xv. 20-35).\n\nIn neither case do the calculations agree with the twelve hundred and\nninety or the thirteen hundred and thirty-five days of xii. 12, 13.\n\nEntire volumes of tedious and wholly inconclusive comment have been\nwritten on these combinations, but by no reasonable supposition\ncan we arrive at close accuracy. Strict chronological accuracy was\ndifficult of attainment in those days, and was never a matter about\nwhich the Jews, in particular, greatly troubled themselves. We do\nnot know either the _terminus a quo_ from which or the _terminus ad\nquem_ to which the writer reckoned. All that can be said is that it\nis perfectly impossible for us to identify or exactly equiparate the\nthree and a half years (vii. 25), the \"two thousand three hundred\nevening-morning\" (viii. 14), the seventy-two weeks (ix. 26), and the\ntwelve hundred and ninety days (xii. 11). Yet all those dates have\nthis point of resemblance about them, that they very roughly indicate\na space of _about_ three and a half years (more or less) as the time\nduring which the daily sacrifice should cease, and the Temple be\npolluted and desolate.[582]\n\nTurning now to the dates, we know that Judas the Maccabee\ncleansed[583] (\"justified\" or \"vindicated,\" viii. 14) the Temple on\nKisleu 25 (December 25th, B.C. 165). If we reckon back two thousand\nthree hundred _full_ days from this date, it brings us to B.C. 171,\nin which Menelaus, who bribed Antiochus to appoint him high priest,\nrobbed the Temple of some of its treasures, and procured the murder\nof the high priest Onias III. In this year Antiochus sacrificed a\ngreat sow on the altar of burnt offerings, and sprinkled its broth\nover the sacred building. These crimes provoked the revolt of the\nJews, in which they killed Lysimachus, governor of Syria, and brought\non themselves a heavy retribution.[584]\n\nIf we reckon back two thousand three hundred _half_-days, eleven\nhundred and fifty _whole_ days, we must go back three years and\nseventy days, but we cannot tell what exact event the writer had\nin mind as the starting-point of his calculations. The actual time\nwhich elapsed from the final defilement of the Temple by Apollonius,\nthe general of Antiochus, in B.C. 168, till its repurification was\nroughly three years. Perhaps, however--for all is uncertain--the\nwriter reckoned from the earliest steps taken, or contemplated, by\nAntiochus for the suppression of Judaism. The purification of the\nTemple did not end the time of persecution, which was to continue,\nfirst, for one hundred and forty days longer, and then forty-five\ndays more (xii. 11, 12). It is clear from this that the writer\nreckoned the beginning and the end of troubles from different epochs\nwhich we have no longer sufficient data to discover.\n\nIt must, however, be borne in mind that no minute certainty about the\nexact dates is attainable. Many authorities, from Prideaux[585] down to\nSch\u00fcrer,[586] place the desecration of the Temple towards the close of\nB.C. 168. Kuenen sees reason to place it a year later. Our authorities\nfor this period of history are numerous, but they are fragmentary,\nabbreviated, and often inexact. Fortunately, so far as we are able to\nsee, no very important lesson is lost by our inability to furnish an\nundoubted or a rigidly scientific explanation of the minuter details.\n\n\n               APPROXIMATE DATES, AS INFERRED BY CORNILL\n                             AND OTHERS[587]\n\n                                                               B.C.\n\n  Jeremiah's prophecy in Jer. xxv. 12                          605\n  Jeremiah's prophecy in Jer. xxix. 10                         594\n  Destruction of the Temple                             586 or 588\n  Return of the Jewish exiles                                  537\n  Decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezra vii. 1)                458\n  Second decree (Neh. ii. 1)                                   445\n  Accession of Antiochus Epiphanes (August, Clinton)           175\n  Usurpation of the high-priesthood by Jason                   175\n  Jason displaced by Menelaus                                  172(?)\n  Murder of Onias III.                                  (June) 171\n  Apollonius defiles the Temple                                168\n  War of independence                                          166\n  Purification of the Temple by Judas the Maccabee  (December) 165\n  Death of Antiochus                                           163\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[537] Ezra vi. 2; Neh. i. 1; Herod., v. 49; Polyb., v. 48. A supposed\ntomb of Daniel has long been revered at Shushan.\n\n[538] Pers., _baru_; Skr., _bura_; Assyr., _birtu_; Gk., \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2. Comp.\n\u00c6sch., _Pers._, 554; Herod., ii. 96.\n\n[539] Theodot., \u03bf\u1f50\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb; Ewald, _Stromgebiet_--a place where several\nrivers meet. The Jews prayed on river-banks (Acts xvi. 13), and\nEzekiel had seen his vision on the Chebar (Ezek. i. 1, iii. 15,\netc.); but this Ulai is here mentioned because the palace stood on\nits bank. Both the LXX. and Theodotion omit the word Ulai.\n\n[540] \"Susianam ab Elymaide disterminat amnis Eul\u00e6us\" (Plin., _H.\nN._, vi. 27).\n\n[541] See Loftus, _Chald\u00e6a_, p. 346, who visited Shush in 1854;\nHerzog, _R. E._, _s.v._ \"Susa.\" A tile was found by Layard at\nKuyunjik representing a large city between two rivers. It probably\nrepresents Susa. Loftus says that the city stood between the Choaspes\nand the Kopratas (now the Dizful).\n\n[542] The Latin word for \"to butt\" is _arietare_, from _aries_, \"a\nram.\" It butts in three directions (comp. Dan. vii. 5). Its conquests\nin the East were apart from the writer's purpose. Cr\u0153sus called the\nPersians \u1f51\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af, and \u00c6schylus \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd, _Pers._, 795 (Stuart).\nFor horns as the symbol of strength see Amos vi. 13; Psalm lxxv. 5.\n\n[543] Unicorns are often represented on Assyrio-Babylonian sculptures.\n\n[544] 1 Macc. i. 1-3; Isa. xli. 2; Hosea xiii. 7, 8; Hab. i. 6.\n\n[545] Fury (_chemah_), \"heat,\" \"violence\"--also of _deadly_ venom\n(Deut. xxxii. 24).\n\n[546] A.V., \"four _notable_ horns\"; but the word _chazoth_ means\nliterally \"a sight of four\"--_i.e._, \"four _other_ horns\" (comp. ver.\n8). Gr\u00e4tz reads _ach\u0113roth_; LXX., \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 (comp. xi. 4).\n\n[547] Lit. \"out of littleness.\"\n\n[548] _Hatstseb\u00ee_. Comp. xi. 45; Ezek. xx. 6; Jer. iii. 19; Zech.\nvii. 14; Psalm cvi. 24. The Rabbis make the word mean \"the gazelle\"\nfor fanciful reasons (_Taan\u00eeth_, 69, _a_).\n\n[549] The physical image implies the war against the spiritual host\nof heaven, the holy people with their leaders. See 1 Macc. i. 24-30;\n2 Macc. ix. 10. The _Tsebaoth_ mean primarily the stars and angels,\nbut next the Israelites (Exod. vii. 4).\n\n[550] So in the Hebrew margin (_Q'r\u00ee_), followed by Theodoret and\nEwald; but in the text (_Keth\u00eebh_) it is, \"by him the daily was\nabolished\"; and with this reading the Peshito and Vulgate agree.\n_Hattam\u00eed_, \"the daily\" sacrifice; LXX., \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2; Numb. xxviii.\n3; 1 Macc. i. 39, 45, iii. 45.\n\n[551] The Hebrew is here corrupt. The R.V. renders it, \"And the host\nwas given over _to it_, together with the continual _burnt offering_\nthrough transgression; and it cast down truth to the ground, and it\ndid _its pleasure_ and prospered.\"\n\n[552] Dan. viii. 13. I follow Ewald in this difficult verse, and with\nhim Von Lengerke and Hitzig substantially agree; but the text is again\ncorrupt, as appears also in the LXX. It would be useless here to enter\ninto minute philological criticism. \"How long?\" (comp. Isa. vi. 11).\n\n[553] LXX., \u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03af; _nescio quis_ (Vulg., _viri_).\n\n[554] Comp. for the expression xii. 6.\n\n[555] We find no names in Gen. xxxii. 30; Judg. xiii. 18. For the\npresence of angels at the vision comp. Zech. i. 9, 13, etc. Gabriel\nmeans \"man of God.\" In Tobit iii. 17 Raphael is mentioned; in 2\nEsdras v. 20, Uriel. This is the first mention of any angel's name.\nMichael is the highest archangel (Weber, _System._, 162 ff.), and in\nJewish angelology Gabriel is identified with the Holy Spirit (_Ruach\nHaqqodesh_). As such he appears in the Qur\u00e2n, ii. 91 (Behrmann).\n\n[556] Ben-Adam (Ezek. ii. 1).\n\n[557] Comp. Isa. xiv. 9: \"All the great goats of the earth.\" A ram is\na natural symbol for a chieftain.--Hom., _Il._, xiii. 491-493; Cic.,\n_De Div._, i. 22; Plut., _Sulla_, c. 27; Jer. l. 8; Ezek. xxxiv. 17;\nZech. x. 3, etc. See Vaux, _Persia_, p. 72.\n\n[558] \"Strength of face\" (LXX., \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u1ff3; Deut. xxviii. 50,\netc.). \"Understanding dark sentences\" (Judg. xiv. 12; Ezek. xvii. 2:\ncomp. v. 12).\n\n[559] The meaning is uncertain. It may mean (1) that he is only\nstrong by God's permission; or (2) only by cunning, not by strength.\n\n[560] Comp. 2 Macc. iv. 9-15: \"The priests had no courage to serve\nany more at the altar, but despising the Temple, and neglecting the\nsacrifices, hastened to be partakers of the unlawful allowance in the\nplace of exercise ... not setting by the honours of their fathers,\nbut liking the glory of the Grecians best of all.\"\n\n[561] Not merely the angelic prince of the host (Josh. v. 14), but\nGod--\"Lord of lords.\"\n\n[562] Comp. Esther i. 2. Though the vision took place under Babylon,\nthe seer is strangely unconcerned with the present, or with the fate\nof the Babylonian Empire.\n\n[563] It is said to be the national emblem of Macedonia.\n\n[564] He is called \"the King of Javan\"--_i.e._, of the Ionians.\n\n[565] Isa. v. 26-29. Comp. 1 Macc. i. 3.\n\n[566] The _fury_ of the he-goat represents the vengeance cherished by\nthe Greeks against Persia since the old days of Marathon, Thermopyl\u00e6,\nSalamis, Plat\u00e6a, and Mycale. Persia had invaded Greece under\nMardonius (B.C. 492), under Datis and Artaphernes (B.C. 490), and\nunder Xerxes (B.C. 480).\n\n[567] 1 Macc. vi. 1-16; 2 Macc. ix. 9; Job vii. 6; Prov. xxvi. 20.\n\n[568] So Diodorus Siculus (Exc. Vales., p. 293); Justin, xxxii. 2;\nJer. _in Dan._, xi.; Strabo, xvi. 744.\n\n[569] Aurel. Vict., _De Virr. Illustr._, c. liv.\n\n[570] He conquered Egypt B.C. 170 (1 Macc. i. 17-20).\n\n[571] See 1 Macc. iii. 29-37.\n\n[572] Comp. Ezek. xx. 6, \"which is the glory of all lands\"; Psalm l.\n2; Lam. ii. 15.\n\n[573] 1 Macc. i. 24-30. Dr. Pusey endeavours, without even the\nsmallest success, to show that many things said of Antiochus in\nthis book do not apply to him. The argument is based on the fact\nthat the characteristics of Antiochus--who was a man of versatile\nimpulses--are somewhat differently described by different authors;\nbut here we have the aspect he presented to a few who regarded him as\nthe deadliest of tyrants and persecutors.\n\n[574] See Hamburger, ii. 334 (_s.v._ \"Haftara\").\n\n[575] Comp. \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 (1 Macc. i. 64; Isa. x. 5, 25, xxvi. 20; Jer.\nl. 5; Rom. ii. 5, etc.).\n\n[576] Comp. xi. 21.\n\n[577] Comp. ii. 34, xi. 45. Antiochus died of a long and terrible\nillness in Persia. Polybius (xxxi. 11) describes his sickness by the\nword \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. Arrian (_Syriaca_, 66) says \u03c6\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5. In\n1 Macc. vi. 8-16 he dies confessing his sins against the Jews, but\nthere is another story in 2 Macc. ix. 4-28.\n\n[578] Ver. 27, \"I was gone\" (or, \"came to an end\") \"whole days.\"\nWith this \u1f14\u03ba\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 comp. ii. 1, vii. 28; Exod. xxxiii. 20; Isa. vi.\n5; Luke ix. 32; Acts ix. 4, etc. Comp. xii. 8; Jer. xxxii. 14, and\n(_contra_) Rev. xxii. 10.\n\n[579] In ver. 26 the R.V. renders \"it belongeth to many days _to come_.\"\n\n[580] Comp. Gen. i. 5; 2 Cor. xi. 25. The word _tam\u00eed_ includes both\nthe morning and evening sacrifice (Exod. xxix. 41). Pusey says (p.\n220), \"The shift of halving the days is one of those monsters which\nhave disgraced scientific expositions 'of Hebrew.'\" Yet this is the\nview of such scholars as Ewald, Hitzig, Kuenen, Cornill, Behrmann.\nThe latter quotes a parallel: \"vgl. im Hildebrandsliede _sumaro ente\nwintro_ sehstie = 30 Jahr.\"\n\n[581] Matt. xxiv. 22.\n\n[582] \"These five passages agree in making the final distress last\nduring three years and a fraction: the only difference lies in the\nmagnitude of the fraction\" (Bevan, p. 127).\n\n[583] 1 Macc. iv. 41-56; 2 Macc. x. 1-5.\n\n[584] See on this period Diod. Sic., _Fr._, xxvi. 79; Liv., xlii. 29;\nPolyb., _Legat._, 71; Justin, xxxiv. 2; Jer., _Comm. in Dan._, xi. 22;\nJahn, _Hebr. Commonwealth_, \u00a7 xciv.; Prideaux, _Connection_, ii. 146.\n\n[585] _Connection_, ii. 188.\n\n[586] _Gesch. d. V. Isr._, i. 155.\n\n[587] Some of these dates are _uncertain_, and are variously given by\ndifferent authorities.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n\n                          _THE SEVENTY WEEKS_\n\n\nThis chapter is occupied with the prayer of Daniel, and with the\nfamous vision of the seventy weeks which has led to such interminable\ncontroversies, but of which the interpretation no longer admits of\nany certainty, because accurate data are not forthcoming.\n\nThe vision is dated in the first year of Darius, the son of\nAchashverosh, of the Median stock.[588] We have seen already that\nsuch a person is unknown to history. The date, however, accords\nwell in this instance with the literary standpoint of the writer.\nThe vision is sent as a consolation of perplexities suggested by\nthe writer's study of the Scriptures; and nothing is more naturally\nimagined than the fact that the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire\nshould have sent a Jewish exile to the study of the rolls of his holy\nprophets, to see what light they threw on the exile of his people.\n\nHe understood from \"the books\" the number of the years \"whereof the\nword of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet for the accomplishing\nof the desolation of Jerusalem, even seventy years.\"[589] Such is the\nrendering of our Revisers, who here follow the A.V. (\"I understood\nby books\"), except that they rightly use the definite article (LXX.,\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2). Such too is the view of Hitzig. Mr. Bevan seems to\nhave pointed out the real meaning of the passage, by referring not\nonly to the Pentateuch generally, as helping to interpret the words\nof Jeremiah, but especially to Lev: xxvi. 18, 21, 24, 28.[590] It was\nthere that the writer of Daniel discovered the method of interpreting\nthe \"seventy years\" spoken of by Jeremiah. The Book of Leviticus had\nfour times spoken of a sevenfold punishment--a punishment \"seven\ntimes more\" for the sins of Israel. Now this thought flashed upon\nthe writer like a luminous principle. Daniel, in whose person he\nwrote, had arrived at the period at which the literal seventy years\nof Jeremiah were--on some methods of computation--upon the eve of\ncompletion: the writer himself is living in the dreary times of\nAntiochus. Jeremiah had prophesied that the nations should serve the\nKing of Babylon seventy years (Jer. xxv. 11), after which time God's\nvengeance should fall on Babylon; and again (Jer. xxix. 10, 11), that\nafter seventy years the exiles should return to Palestine, since the\nthoughts of Jehovah towards them were thoughts of peace and not of\nevil, to give them a future and a hope.\n\nThe writer of Daniel saw, nearly four centuries later, that after\nall only a mere handful of the exiles, whom the Jews themselves\ncompared to the chaff in comparison with the wheat, had returned\nfrom exile; that the years which followed had been cramped, dismal,\nand distressful; that the splendid hopes of the Messianic kingdom,\nwhich had glowed so brightly on the foreshortened horizon of Isaiah\nand so many of the prophets, had never yet been fulfilled; and that\nthese anticipations never showed fewer signs of fulfilment than in\nthe midst of the persecuting furies of Antiochus, supported by the\nwidespread apostasies of the Hellenising Jews, and the vile ambition\nof such renegade high priests as Jason and Menelaus.\n\nThat the difficulty was felt is shown by the fact that the Epistle\nof Jeremy (ver. 2) extends the epoch of captivity to two hundred and\nten years (7 \u00d7 30), whereas in Jer. xxix. 10 \"seventy years\" are\ndistinctly mentioned.[591]\n\nWhat was the explanation of this startling apparent discrepancy\nbetween \"the sure word of prophecy\" and the gloomy realities of\nhistory?\n\nThe writer saw it in a _mystic_ or allegorical interpretation of\nJeremiah's seventy years. The prophet could not (he thought) have meant\nseventy _literal_ years. The number seven indeed played its usual\nmystic part in the epoch of punishment. Jerusalem had been taken B.C.\n588; the first return of the exiles had been about B.C. 538. The Exile\ntherefore had, from one point of view, lasted forty-nine years--_i.e._,\n7 \u00d7 7. But even if seventy years were reckoned from the fourth year of\nJehoiakim (B.C. 606?) to the decree of Cyrus (B.C. 536), and if these\nseventy years could be made out, still the hopes of the Jews were on\nthe whole miserably frustrated.[592]\n\nSurely then--so thought the writer--the real meaning of Jeremiah must\nhave been misunderstood; or, at any rate, only partially understood.\nHe must have meant, not \"years,\" but _weeks of years_--_Sabbatical_\nyears. And that being so, the real Messianic fulfilments were not\nto come till _four hundred and ninety years_ after the beginning\nof the Exile; and this clue he found in Leviticus. It was indeed a\nclue which lay ready to the hand of any one who was perplexed by\nJeremiah's prophecy, for the word \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7, \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c2, means, not\nonly the week, but also \"seven,\" and _the seventh year_;[593] and\nthe Chronicler had already declared that the reason why the land\nwas to lie waste for seventy years was that \"the land\" was \"to\nenjoy her Sabbaths\"; in other words, that, as seventy Sabbatical\nyears had been wholly neglected (and indeed unheard of) during the\nperiod of the monarchy--which he reckoned at four hundred and ninety\nyears--therefore it was to enjoy those Sabbatical years continuously\nwhile there was no nation in Palestine to cultivate the soil.[594]\n\nAnother consideration may also have led the writer to his discovery.\nFrom the coronation of Saul to the captivity of Zachariah, reckoning\nthe recorded length of each reign and giving seventeen years to Saul\n(since the \"forty years\" of Acts xiii. 21 is obviously untenable),\ngave four hundred and ninety years, or, as the Chronicler implies,\nseventy unkept Sabbatic years. The writer had no means for an accurate\ncomputation of the time which had elapsed since the destruction of the\nTemple. But as there were four hundred and eighty years and twelve high\npriests from Aaron to Ahimaaz, and four hundred and eighty years and\ntwelve high priests from Azariah I. to Jozadak, who was priest at the\nbeginning of the Captivity,--so there were twelve high priests from\nJozadak to Onias III.; and this seemed to imply a lapse of some four\nhundred and ninety years in round numbers.[595]\n\nThe writer introduces what he thus regarded as a consoling and\nilluminating discovery in a striking manner. Daniel coming to\nunderstand for the first time the real meaning of Jeremiah's\n\"seventy years,\" \"set his face unto the Lord God, to seek prayer and\nsupplication with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.\"[596]\n\nHis prayer is thus given:--\n\nIt falls into three strophes of equal length, and is \"all alive\nand aglow with a pure fire of genuine repentance, humbly assured\nfaith, and most intense petition.\"[597] At the same time it is the\ncomposition of a literary writer, for in phrase after phrase it\nrecalls various passages of Scripture.[598] It closely resembles\nthe prayers of Ezra and Nehemiah, and is so nearly parallel with\nthe prayer of the apocryphal Baruch that Ewald regards it as an\nintentional abbreviation of Baruch ii. 1-iii. 39. Ezra, however,\nconfesses the sins of his nation without asking for forgiveness; and\nNehemiah likewise praises God for His mercies, but does not plead for\npardon or deliverance; but Daniel entreats pardon for Israel and asks\nthat his own prayer may be heard. The sins of Israel in vv. 5, 6,\nfall under the heads of wandering, lawlessness, rebellion, apostasy,\nand heedlessness. It is one of the marked tendencies of the later\nJewish writings to degenerate into centos of phrases from the Law and\nthe Prophets. It is noticeable that the name Jehovah occurs in this\nchapter of Daniel _alone_ (in vv. 2, 4, 10, 13, 14, 20); and that he\nalso addresses God as El, Elohim, and Adonai.\n\nIn the first division of the prayer (vv. 4-10) Daniel admits the\nfaithfulness and mercy of God, and deplores the transgressions of his\npeople from the highest to the lowest in all lands.\n\nIn the second part (vv. 11-14) he sees in these transgressions the\nfulfilment of \"the curse and the oath\" written in the Law of Moses,\nwith special reference to Lev. xxvi. 14, 18, etc. In spite of all\ntheir sins and miseries they had not \"stroked the face\" of the Lord\ntheir God.[599]\n\nThe third section (vv. 15-19) appeals to God by His past mercies\nand deliverances to turn away His wrath and to pity the reproach of\nHis people. Daniel entreats Jehovah to hear his prayer, to make His\nface shine on His desolated sanctuary, and to behold the horrible\ncondition of His people and of His holy city. Not for their sakes is\nHe asked to show His great compassion, but because His Name is called\nupon His city and His people.[600]\n\nSuch is the prayer; and while Daniel was still speaking, praying,\nconfessing his own and Israel's sins, and interceding before Jehovah\nfor the holy mountain--yea, even during the utterance of his\nprayer--the Gabriel of his former vision came speeding to him in full\nflight[601] at the time of the evening sacrifice.[602] The archangel\ntells him that no sooner had his supplication begun than he sped on\nhis way, for Daniel is a dearly beloved one.[603] Therefore he bids\nhim take heed to the word and to the vision:--\n\n1. Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people, and upon thy holy\ncity[604]--\n\n(\u03b1) to finish (or \"restrain\") the transgression;\n\n(\u03b2) to make an end of (or \"seal up,\" Theodot. \u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9) sins;[605]\n\n(\u03b3) to make reconciliation for (or \"to purge away\") iniquity;\n\n(\u03b4) to bring in everlasting righteousness;\n\n(\u03b5) to seal up vision and prophet (Heb., _n\u0101b\u00ee_; LXX., \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd); and\n\n(\u03b6) to anoint the Most Holy (or \"a Most Holy Place\"; LXX., \u03b5\u1f50\u03c6\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd).\n\n2. From the decree to restore Jerusalem unto the Anointed One (or\n\"the Messiah\"), the Prince, shall be seven weeks. For sixty-two\nweeks Jerusalem shall be built again with street and moat, though in\ntroublous times.[606]\n\n3. After these sixty-two weeks--\n\n(\u03b1) an Anointed One shall be cut off, and shall have no help (?) (or\n\"there shall be none belonging to him\");[607]\n\n(\u03b2) the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city\nand the sanctuary;\n\n(\u03b3) his end and the end shall be with a flood, and war, and desolation;\n\n(\u03b4) for one week this alien prince shall make a covenant with many;\n\n(\u03b5) for half of that week he shall cause the sacrifice and burnt\noffering to cease;\n\n(\u03b6) and upon the wing of abominations [_shall come_] one that maketh\ndesolate;\n\n(\u03b7) and unto the destined consummation [_wrath_] shall be poured out\nupon a desolate one (?) (or \"the horrible one\").\n\nMuch is uncertain in the text, and much in the translation; but the\ngeneral outline of the declaration is clear in many of the chief\nparticulars, so far as they are capable of historic verification.\nInstead of being a mystical prophecy which floated purely in the air,\nand in which a week stands (as Keil supposes) for unknown, heavenly,\nand symbolic periods--in which case no real information would have\nbeen vouchsafed--we are expressly told that it was intended to give\nthe seer a definite, and even a minutely detailed, indication of the\ncourse of events.\n\nLet us now take the revelation which is sent to the perplexed mourner\nstep by step.\n\n1. Seventy weeks are to elapse before any perfect deliverance is to\ncome. We are nowhere expressly told that _year-weeks_ are meant, but\nthis is implied throughout, as the only possible means of explaining\neither the vision or the history. The conception, as we have seen,\nwould come to readers quite naturally, since _Shabbath_ meant in\nHebrew, not only the seventh day of the week, but the seventh year\nin each week of years. Hence \"seventy weeks\" means four hundred and\nninety years.[608] Not until the four hundred and ninety _years_--the\nseventy _weeks of years_--are ended will the time have come to\ncomplete the prophecy which only had a sort of initial and imperfect\nfulfilment in seventy _actual_ years.\n\nThe _precise_ meaning attached in the writer's mind to the events\nwhich are to mark the close of the four hundred and ninety\nyears--namely, (\u03b1) the ending of transgression; (\u03b2) the sealing up\nof sins; (\u03b3) the atonement for iniquity; (\u03b4) the bringing in of\neverlasting righteousness; and (\u03b5) the sealing up of the vision\nand prophet (or prophecy[609])--cannot be further defined by us.\nIt belongs to the Messianic hope.[610] It is the prophecy of a\ntime which may have had some dim and partial analogies at the end\nof Jeremiah's seventy years, but which the writer thought would be\nmore richly and finally fulfilled at the close of the Antiochian\npersecution. At the actual time of his writing that era of\nrestitution had not yet begun.\n\nBut (\u03b6) another event, which would mark the close of the seventy\nyear-weeks, was to be \"the anointing of a Most Holy.\"\n\nWhat does this mean?\n\nTheodotion and the ancient translators render it \"_a_ Holy of\nHolies.\" But throughout the whole Old Testament \"Holy of Holies\" _is\nnever once used of a person_, though it occurs forty-four times.[611]\nKeil and his school point to 1 Chron. xxiii. 13 as an exception; but\n\"_Nil agit exemptum quod litem lite resolvit._\"\n\nIn that verse some propose the rendering, \"to sanctify, as most\nholy, Aaron and his sons for ever\"; but both the A.V. and the R.V.\nrender it, \"Aaron was separated that he should sanctify _the most\nholy things_, he and his sons for ever.\" If there be a doubt as to\nthe rendering, it is perverse to adopt the one which makes the usage\ndiffer from that of every other passage in Holy Writ.\n\nNow the phrase \"most holy\" is most frequently applied to the great\naltar of sacrifice.[612] It is therefore natural to explain the\npresent passage as a reference to the reanointing of the altar of\nsacrifice, primarily in the days of Zerubbabel, and secondarily by\nJudas Maccab\u00e6us after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes.[613]\n\n2. But in the more detailed explanation which follows, the seventy\nyear-weeks are divided into 7 + 62 + 1.\n\n(a) At the end of the first seven week-years (after forty-nine years)\nJerusalem should be restored, and there should be \"an Anointed, a\nPrince.\"[614]\n\nSome ancient Jewish commentators, followed by many eminent and\nlearned moderns,[615] understand this Anointed One (_Mashiach_) and\nPrince (_Nag\u00eed_) to be Cyrus; and that there can be no objection to\nconferring on him the exalted title of \"Messiah\" is amply proved by\nthe fact that Isaiah himself bestows it upon him (Isa. xlv. 1).\n\nOthers, however, both ancient (like Eusebius) and modern (like\nGr\u00e4tz), prefer to explain the term of the anointed Jewish high\npriest, Joshua, the son of Jozadak. For the term \"Anointed\" is given\nto the high priest in Lev. iv. 3, vi. 20; and Joshua's position among\nthe exiles might well entitle him, as much as Zerubbabel himself, to\nthe title of _Nag\u00eed_ or Prince.[616]\n\n(\u03b2) After this restoration of Temple and priest, sixty-two weeks\n(_i.e._, four hundred and thirty-four years) are to elapse, during\nwhich Jerusalem is indeed to exist \"with street and trench\"--but in\nthe straitness of the times.[617]\n\nThis, too, is clear and easy of comprehension. It exactly corresponds\nwith the depressed condition of Jewish life during the Persian and\nearly Grecian epochs, from the restoration of the Temple, B.C. 538,\nto B.C. 171, when the false high priest Menelaus robbed the Temple of\nits best treasures. This is indeed, so far as accurate chronology is\nconcerned, an unverifiable period, for it only gives us three hundred\nand sixty-seven years instead of four hundred and thirty-four:--but\nof that I will speak later on. The punctuation of the original is\ndisputed. Theodotion, the Vulgate, and our A.V. punctuate in ver.\n25, \"From the going forth of the commandment\" (\"decree\" or \"word\")\n\"that Jerusalem should be restored and rebuilt, unto an Anointed, a\nPrince, are seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks.\" Accepting this view,\nVon Lengerke and Hitzig make the seven weeks run _parallel_ with the\nfirst seven in the sixty-two. This indeed makes the chronology a\nlittle more accurate, but introduces an unexplained and a fantastic\nelement. Consequently most modern scholars, including even such\nwriters as Keil, and our Revisers follow the Masoretic punctuation,\nand put the stop after the seven weeks, separating them entirely from\nthe following sixty-two.\n\n3. After the sixty-two weeks is to follow a series of events, and all\nthese point quite distinctly to the epoch of Antiochus Epiphanes.\n\n(\u03b1) Ver. 26.--An Anointed One[618] shall be cut off with all that\nbelongs to him.\n\nThere can be no reasonable doubt that this is a reference to\nthe deposition of the high priest Onias III., and his murder by\nAndronicus (B.C. 171).[619] This startling event is mentioned in\n2 Macc. iv. 34, and by Josephus (_Antt._, XII. v. 1), and in Dan.\nxi. 22. It is added, \"_and no ... to him_.\"[620] Perhaps the word\n\"helper\" (xi. 45) has fallen out of the text, as Gr\u00e4tz supposes; or\nthe words may mean, \"there is no [priest] for it [the people].\"[621]\nThe A.V. renders it, \"but not for himself\"; and in the margin, \"and\nshall have nothing\"; or, \"and they [the Jews] shall be no more his\npeople.\" The R.V. renders it, \"and shall have nothing.\" I believe,\nwith Dr. Jo\u00ebl, that in the Hebrew words _veeyn l\u00f4_ there may be a\nsort of cryptographic allusion to the name Onias.[622]\n\n(\u03b2) The people of the coming prince shall devastate the city and the\nsanctuary (translation uncertain).\n\nThis is an obvious allusion to the destruction and massacre inflicted\non Jerusalem by Apollonius and the army of Antiochus Epiphanes (B.C.\n167). Antiochus is called \"the prince _that shall come_,\" because he\nwas at Rome when Onias III. was murdered (B.C. 171).[623]\n\n(\u03b3) \"And until the end shall be a war, a sentence of desolation\"\n(Hitzig, etc.); or, as Ewald renders it, \"Until the end of the war is\nthe decision concerning the horrible thing.\"\n\nThis alludes to the troubles of Jerusalem until the heaven-sent\nNemesis fell on the profane enemy of the saints in the miserable\ndeath of Antiochus in Persia.\n\n(\u03b4) But meanwhile he will have concluded a covenant with many for one\nweek.[624]\n\nIn any case, whatever be the exact reading or rendering, this seems\nto be an allusion to the fact that Antiochus was confirmed in his\nperversity and led on to extremes in the enforcement of his attempt\nto Hellenise the Jews and to abolish their national religion by the\nexistence of a large party of flagrant apostates. These were headed\nby their godless and usurping high priests, Jason and Menelaus.\nAll this is strongly emphasised in the narrative of the Book of\nMaccabees. This attempted apostasy lasted for one week--_i.e._, for\nseven years; the years intended being probably the first seven of the\nreign of Antiochus, from B.C. 175 to B.C. 168. During this period he\nwas aided by wicked men, who said, \"Let us go and make a covenant\nwith the heathen round about us; for since we departed from them\nwe have had much sorrow.\" Antiochus \"gave them licence to do after\nthe ordinances of the heathen,\" so that they built a gymnasium at\nJerusalem, obliterated the marks of circumcision, and were joined to\nthe heathen (1 Macc. i. 10-15).\n\n(\u03b5) For the half of this week (_i.e._, for three and a half\nyears) the king abolished the sacrifice and the oblation or meat\noffering.[625]\n\nThis alludes to the suppression of the most distinctive ordinances of\nJewish worship, and the general defilement of the Temple after the\nsetting up of the heathen altar. The reckoning seems to be from the\nedict promulgated some months before December, 168, to December, 165,\nwhen Judas the Maccabee reconsecrated the Temple.\n\n(\u03b6) The sentence which follows is surrounded with every kind of\nuncertainty.\n\nThe R.V. renders it, \"And upon the wing [or, pinnacle] of\nabominations shall come [or, be] one that maketh desolate.\"\n\nThe A.V. has, \"And for the overspreading of abominations\" (or _marg._,\n\"with the abominable armies\") \"he shall make it desolate.\"[626]\n\nIt is from the LXX. that we derive the famous expression,\n\"abomination of desolation,\" referred to by St. Matthew (xxiv. 15:\ncf. Luke xxi. 20) in the last discourse of our Lord.\n\nOther translations are as follows:--\n\n_Gesenius_: \"Desolation comes upon the horrible wing of a rebel's\nhost.\"\n\n_Ewald_: \"And above will be the horrible wing of abominations.\"\n\n_Wieseler_: \"And a desolation shall arise against the wing of\nabominations.\"\n\n_Von Lengerke, Hengstenberg, Pusey_: \"And over the edge [or,\npinnacle[627]] of abominations [cometh] the desolator\";--which they\nunderstand to mean that Antiochus will rule over the Temple defiled\nby heathen rites.\n\n_Kranichfeld and Keil_: \"And a destroyer comes on the wings of\nidolatrous abominations.\"\n\n_Kuenen_, followed by others, boldly alters the text from _ve'al\nk'naph_, \"and upon the wing,\" into _ve'al kann\u00f4_, \"and instead\nthereof.\"[628]\n\n\"And instead thereof\" (_i.e._, in the place of the sacrifice and meat\noffering) \"there shall be abominations.\"\n\nIt is needless to weary the reader with further attempts at\ntranslation; but however uncertain may be the exact reading or\nrendering, few modern commentators doubt that the allusion is to\nthe smaller heathen altar built by Antiochus above (_i.e._, on\nthe summit) of the \"Most Holy\"--_i.e._, the great altar of burnt\nsacrifice--overshadowing it like \"a wing\" (_kanaph_), and causing\ndesolations or abominations (_shiqqoots\u00eem_). That this interpretation\nis the correct one can hardly be doubted in the light of the clearer\nreferences to \"the abomination that maketh desolate\" in xi. 31\nand xii. 11. In favour of this we have the almost contemporary\ninterpretation of the Book of Maccabees. The author of that history\ndirectly applies the phrase \"the abomination of desolation\" to the\nidol altar set up by Antiochus (1 Macc. i. 54, vi. 7).\n\n(\u03b7) Lastly, the terrible drama shall end by an outpouring of wrath,\nand a sentence of judgment on \"the desolation\" (R.V.) or \"the\ndesolate\" (A.V.).\n\nThis can only refer to the ultimate judgment with which Antiochus is\nmenaced.\n\nIt will be seen then that, despite all uncertainties in the text,\nin the translation, and in the details, we have in these verses an\nunmistakably clear foreshadowing of the same persecuting king, and\nthe same disastrous events, with which the mind of the writer is so\npredominantly haunted, and which are still more clearly indicated in\nthe subsequent chapter.\n\nIs it necessary, after an inquiry inevitably tedious, and of little\nor no apparently spiritual profit or significance, to enter further\ninto the intolerably and interminably perplexed and voluminous\ndiscussions as to the beginning, the ending, and the exactitude of\nthe seventy weeks?[629] Even St. Jerome gives, by way of specimen,\n_nine_ different interpretations in his time, and comes to no\ndecision of his own. After confessing that all the interpretations\nwere individual guesswork, he leaves every reader to his own\njudgment, and adds: \"_Dicam quid unusquisque senserit, lectoris\narbitrio derelinquens cujus expositionem sequi debeat_.\"\n\nI cannot think that the least advantage can be derived from doing so.\n\nFor scarcely any two leading commentators agree as to details;--or\neven as to any fixed principles by which they profess to determine\nthe date at which the period of seventy weeks is to begin or is\nto end;--or whether they are to be reckoned continuously, or with\narbitrary misplacements or discontinuations;--or even whether\nthey are not purely symbolical, so as to have no reference to\nany chronological indications;[630]--or whether they are to be\ninterpreted as referring to one special series of events, or to\nbe regarded as having many fulfilments by \"springing and germinal\ndevelopments.\" The latter view is, however, distinctly tenable. It\napplies to all prophecies, inasmuch as history repeats itself; and\nour Lord referred to another \"abomination of desolation\" which in His\ndays was yet to come.[631]\n\nThere is not even an initial agreement--or even the data as to an\nagreement--whether the \"years\" to be counted are solar years of three\nhundred and forty-three days, or lunar years, or \"mystic\" years, or\nSabbath years of forty-nine years, or \"indefinite\" years; or where\nthey are to begin and end, or in what fashion they are to be divided.\nAll is chaos in the existing commentaries.\n\nAs for any received or authorised interpretation, there not only is\nnone, but never has been. The Jewish interpreters differ from one\nanother as widely as the Christian. Even in the days of the Fathers,\nthe early exegetes were so hopelessly at sea in their methods of\napplication that St. Jerome contents himself, just as I have done,\nwith giving no opinion of his own.[632]\n\nThe attempt to refer the prophecy of the seventy weeks primarily or\ndirectly to the coming and death of Christ, or the desolation of the\nTemple by Titus, can only be supported by immense manipulations,\nand by hypotheses so crudely impossible that they would have\nmade the prophecy practically meaningless both to Daniel and to\nany subsequent reader. The hopelessness of this attempt of the\nso-called \"orthodox\" interpreters is proved by their own fundamental\ndisagreements.[633] It is finally discredited by the fact that\nneither our Lord, nor His Apostles, nor any of the earliest Christian\nwriters once appealed to the evidence of this prophecy, which, on\nthe principles of Hengstenberg and Dr. Pusey, would have been so\ndecisive! If such a proof lay ready to their hand--a proof definite\nand chronological--why should they have deliberately passed it over,\nwhile they referred to other prophecies so much more general, and so\nmuch less precise in dates?\n\nOf course it is open to any reader to adopt the view of Keil and\nothers, that the prophecy is Messianic, but only _typically_ and\n_generally_ so.\n\nOn the other hand, it may be objected that the Antiochian hypothesis\nbreaks down, because--though it does not pretend to resort to any of\nthe wild, arbitrary, and I had almost said preposterous, hypotheses\ninvented by those who approach the interpretation of the Book with\n_a-priori_ and _a-posteriori_[634] assumptions--it still does not\naccurately correspond to ascertainable dates.\n\nBut to those who are guided in their exegesis, not by unnatural\ninventions, but by the great guiding principles of history and\nliterature, this consideration presents no difficulty. Any exact\naccuracy of chronology would have been far more surprising in\na writes of the Maccabean era than round numbers and vague\ncomputations. Precise computation is nowhere prevalent in the\nsacred books. The object of those books always is the conveyance of\neternal, moral, and spiritual instruction. To such purely mundane\nand secondary matters as close reckoning of dates the Jewish writers\nshow themselves manifestly indifferent. It is possible that, if we\nwere able to ascertain the data which lay before the writer, his\ncalculations might seem less divergent from exact numbers than they\nnow appear. More than this we cannot affirm.\n\nWhat was the date from which the writer calculated his seventy weeks?\nWas it from the date of Jeremiah's first prophecy (xxv. 12), B.C.\n605? or his second prophecy (xxix. 10), eleven years later, B.C.\n594? or from the destruction of the first Temple, B.C. 586? or, as\nsome Jews thought, from the first year of \"Darius the Mede\"? or\nfrom the decree of Artaxerxes in Neh. ii. 1-9? or from the birth of\nChrist--the date assumed by Apollinaris? All these views have been\nadopted by various Rabbis and Fathers; but it is obvious that not\none of them accords with the allusions of the narrative and prayer,\nexcept that which makes the destruction of the Temple the _terminus\na quo_. In the confusion of historic reminiscences and the rarity of\nwritten documents, the writer may not have consciously distinguished\nthis date (B.C. 588) from the date of Jeremiah's prophecy (B.C. 594).\nThat there were differences of computation as regards Jeremiah's\nseventy years, even in the age of the Exile, is sufficiently shown by\nthe different views as to their termination taken by the Chronicler\n(2 Chron. xxxvi. 22), who fixes it B.C. 536, and by Zechariah (Zech.\ni. 12), who fixes it about B.C. 519.\n\nAs to the _terminus ad quem_, it is open to any commentator to say that\nthe prediction may point to many subsequent and analogous fulfilments;\nbut no competent and serious reader who judges of these chapters by the\nchapters themselves and by their own repeated indications, can have\none moment's hesitation in the conclusion that the writer is thinking\nmainly of the defilement of the Temple in the days of Antiochus\nEpiphanes, and its reconsecration (in round numbers) three and a half\nyears later by Judas Maccab\u00e6us (December 25th, B.C. 164).\n\nIt is true that from B.C. 588 to B.C. 164 only gives us four hundred\nand twenty-four years, instead of four hundred and ninety years. How\nis this to be accounted for? Ewald supposes the loss of some passage\nin the text which would have explained the discrepancy; and that the\ntext is in a somewhat chaotic condition is proved by its inherent\nphilological difficulties, and by the appearance which it assumes\nin the Septuagint. The first seven weeks indeed, or forty-nine\nyears, approximately correspond to the time between B.C. 588 (the\ndestruction of the Temple) and B.C. 536 (the decree of Cyrus); but\nthe following sixty-two weeks should give us four hundred and\nthirty-four years from the time of Cyrus to the cutting off of the\nAnointed One, by the murder of Onias III. in B.C. 171, whereas it\nonly gives us three hundred and sixty-five. How are we to account for\nthis miscalculation to the extent of at least sixty-five years?\n\nNot one single suggestion has ever accounted for it, or has ever\ngiven exactitude to these computations on any tenable hypothesis.[635]\n\nBut Sch\u00fcrer has shown that _exactly similar mistakes of reckoning_\nare made even by so learned and industrious an historian as Josephus.\n\n1. Thus in his _Jewish War_ (VI. iv. 8) he says that there were six\nhundred and thirty-nine years between the second year of Cyrus and\nthe destruction of the Temple by Titus (A.D. 70). Here is an error of\nmore than thirty years.\n\n2. In his _Antiquities_ (XX. x.) he says that there were four hundred\nand thirty-four years between the Return from the Captivity (B.C.\n536) and the reign of Antiochus Eupator (B.C. 164-162). Here is an\nerror of more than sixty years.\n\n3. In _Antt._, XIII. xi. 1, he reckons four hundred and eighty-one\nyears between the Return from the Captivity and the time of\nAristobulus (B.C. 105-104). Here is an error of some fifty years.\n\nAgain, the Jewish Hellenist Demetrius[636] reckons five hundred\nand seventy-three years from the Captivity of the Ten Tribes (B.C.\n722) to the time of Ptolemy IV. (B.C. 222), which is seventy years\ntoo many. In other words, he makes as nearly as possible the same\nmiscalculations as the writer of Daniel. This seems to show that\nthere was some traditional error in the current chronology; and it\ncannot be overlooked that in ancient days the means for coming to\naccurate chronological conclusion were exceedingly imperfect. \"Until\nthe establishment of the Seleucid era (B.C. 312), the Jew had no\nfixed era whatsoever\";[637] and nothing is less astonishing than\nthat an apocalyptic writer of the date of Epiphanes, basing his\ncalculations on uncertain data to give an allegoric interpretation to\nan ancient prophecy, should have lacked the records which would alone\nhave enabled him to calculate with exact precision.[638]\n\nAnd, for the rest, we must say with Grotius, \"_Modicum nec pr\u00e6tor\ncurat, nec propheta_.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[588] Achashverosh, Esther viii. 10; perhaps connected with\n_Kshaj\u00e2rsha_, \"eye of the kingdom\" (_Corp. Inscr. Sem._, ii. 125).\n\n[589] By \"the books\" is here probably meant the Thorah or Pentateuch,\nin which the writer discovered the key to the mystic meaning of the\nseventy years. It was not in the two sections of Jeremiah himself\n(called, according to Kimchi, _Sepher Hamattanah_ and _Sepher Hagalon_)\nthat he found this key. Jeremiah is here _Yir'myah_, as in Jer.\nxxvii.-xxix. See Jer. xxv. 11; Ezek. xxxvii. 21; Zech. i. 12. In the\nEpistle of Jeremy (ver. 2) the seventy years become seven generations\n(\u03a7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c0\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd). See too Dillman's _Enoch_, p. 293.\n\n[590] _Dan._, p. 146. Comp. a similar usage in Aul. Gell., _Noct.\nAtt._, iii. 10, \"Se jam _undecimam annorum hebdomadem_ ingressum\nesse\"; and Arist., _Polit._, vii. 16.\n\n[591] See Fritzsche _ad loc._; Ewald, _Hist. of Isr._, v. 140.\n\n[592] The writer of 2 Chron. xxxv. 17, 18, xxxvi. 21, 22, evidently\nsupposed that seventy years had elapsed between the destruction of\nJerusalem and the decree of Cyrus--which is only a period of fifty\nyears. The Jewish writers were wholly without means for forming an\naccurate chronology. For instance, the Prophet Zechariah (i. 12),\nwriting in the second year of Darius, son of Hystaspes (B.C. 520),\nthinks that the seventy years were only then concluding. In fact, the\nseventy years may be dated from B.C. 606 (fourth year of Jehoiakim);\nor B.C. 598 (Jehoiachin); or from the destruction of the Temple (B.C.\n588); and may be supposed to end at the decree of Cyrus (B.C. 536);\nor the days of Zerubbabel (Ezra v. 1); or the decree of Darius (B.C.\n518, Ezra vi. 1-12).\n\n[593] Lev. xxv. 2, 4.\n\n[594] 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21. See Bevan, p. 14.\n\n[595] See Cornill, _Die Siebzig Jahrwochen Daniels_, pp. 14-18.\n\n[596] The LXX. and Theodotion, with a later ritual bias, make the\n_fasting_ a means towards the prayer: \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[597] Ewald, p. 278. The first part (vv. 4-14) is mainly occupied\nwith confessions and acknowledgment of God's justice; the last\npart (vv. 15-19) with entreaty for pardon: _confessio_ (vv. 4-14);\n_consolatio_ (vv. 15-19) (Melancthon).\n\n[598] Besides the parallels which follow, it has phrases from Exod.\nxx. 6; Deut. vii. 21, x. 17; Jer. vii. 19; Psalm xliv. 16, cxxx. 4; 2\nChron. xxxvi. 15, 16. Mr. Deane (Bishop Ellicott's _Commentary_, p.\n407) thus exhibits the details of special resemblances:--\n\n             +----------+----------+----------+----------+\n             | Dan. ix. | Ezra ix. | Neh. ix. |  Baruch. |\n             +----------+----------+----------+----------+\n             |  Verse.  |  Verse.  |  Verse.  |          |\n             |    4     |     7    |    32    |    --    |\n             |    5     |     7    |  33, 34  |   i. 11  |\n             |    6     |     7    |  32, 33  |    --    |\n             |    7     |  6, 7    |  32, 33  | i. 15-17 |\n             |    8     |  6, 7    |    33    |    --    |\n             |    9     |    --    |    17    |    --    |\n             |   13     |    --    |    --    |  ii. 7   |\n             |   14     |    15    |    33    |    --    |\n             |   15     |    --    |    10    |  ii. 11  |\n             |   18     |    --    |    --    |  ii. 19  |\n             |   19     |    --    |    --    |  ii. 15  |\n             +----------+----------+----------+----------+\n\n[599] ix. 13 (Heb.). Comp. Exod. xxxii. 13; 1 Sam. xiii. 12; 1 Kings\nxiii. 6, etc.\n\n[600] Comp. Jer. xxxii. 17-23; Isa. lxiii. 11-16.\n\n[601] ix. 21. LXX., \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; Theodot., \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; Vulg.,\n_cito volans_; A.V. and R.V., \"being made to fly swiftly\"; R.V.\nmarg., \"being sore wearied\"; A.V. marg., \"with weariness\"; Von\nLengerke, \"being caused to hasten with haste.\" The verb elsewhere\nalways connotes weariness. If that be the meaning here, it must refer\nto Daniel. If it here means \"flying,\" it is the only passage in the\nOld Testament where angels fly; but see Isa. vi. 2; Psalm civ. 4,\netc. The _wings of angels_ are first mentioned in the Book of Enoch,\nlxi.; but see Rev. xiv. 6--cherubim and seraphim have wings.\n\n[602] In the time of the historic Daniel, as in the brief three and a\nhalf years of Antiochus, the _tam\u00eed_ had ceased.\n\n[603] ix. 23. Heb., _eesh hamud\u00f4th_; Vulg., _vir desideriorum_, \"a\nman of desires\"; Theodot., \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd. Comp. x. 11, 19, and Jer.\nxxxi. 20, where \"a pleasant child\" is \"a son of caresses\"; and the\n\"_amor et delici\u00e6 generis humani_\" applied to Titus; and the names\nDavid, Jedidiah, \"beloved of Jehovah.\" The LXX. render the word\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, \"an object of pity.\"\n\n[604] Daniel used _Shabu\u00eem_ for weeks, not _Shabu\u00f4th_.\n\n[605] In ver. 24 the _Q'r\u00ee_ and _Keth\u00eebh_ vary, as do also the versions.\n\n[606] For _charoots_, \"moat\" (Ewald), the A.V. has \"wall,\" and in\nthe marg. \"breach\" or \"ditch.\" The word occurs for \"ditches\" in the\nTalmud. The text of the verse is uncertain.\n\n[607] Perhaps because neither Jason nor Menelaus (being apostate)\nwere regarded as genuine successors of Onias III.\n\n[608] Numb. xiv. 34; Lev. xxvi. 34; Ezek. iv. 6.\n\n[609] Comp. Jer. xxxii. 11, 44.\n\n[610] See Isa. xlvi. 3, li. 5, liii. 11; Jer. xxiii. 6, etc.\n\n[611] For the _anointing_ of the altar see Exod. xxix. 36, xl. 10;\nLev. viii. 11; Numb. vii. 1. It would make no difference in the _usus\nloquendi_ if neither Zerubbabel's nor Judas's altar was _actually_\nanointed.\n\n[612] It is only used thirteen times of the _Debh\u00eer_, or Holiest Place.\n\n[613] 1 Macc. iv. 54.\n\n[614] Theodot., \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[615] Saadia the Gaon, Rashi, Von Lengerke, Hitzig, Sch\u00fcrer, Cornill.\n\n[616] Hag. i. 1; Zech. iii. 1; Ezra iii. 2. Comp. Ecclus. xlv. 24;\nJos., _Antt._, XII. iv. 2, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2; and see Bevan, p. 156.\n\n[617] We see from Zech. i. 12, ii. 4, that even in the second year of\nDarius Hystaspis Jerusalem had neither walls nor gates; and even in\nthe twentieth year of Artaxerxes the wall was still broken down and\nthe gates burnt (Neh. i. 3).\n\n[618] LXX., \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; Theodot.,\n\u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7; Aquil., \u1f10\u03be. \u1f20\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7.\n\n[619] See xi. 22. Von Lengerke, however, and others refer it to\nSeleucus Philopator, murdered by Heliodorus (B.C. 175).\n\n[620] Syr. Aquil., \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7; Theodot., \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f54\u03ba \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u1ff3; LXX., \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; Vulg., \"Et non erit ejus populus qui eum\nnegaturus est.\" The A.V. \"and not for himself\" is untenable. It would\nhave been \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0. See Pusey, p. 182, _n._\n\n[621] Steudel, Hofmann. So too Cornill, p. 10: \"Ein frommer Jude das\nHoher Priesterthum mit Onias f\u00fcr erloschen ansah.\"\n\n[622] Comp. \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df and \u05d7\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 (Jo\u00ebl, _Notizen_, p. 21).\n\n[623] Jos., _Antt._, XII. v. 4; 1 Macc. i. 29-40.\n\n[624] Here again the meaning is uncertain; and Gr\u00e4tz, altering the\nreading, thinks that it should be, \"He shall abolish the covenant\n[with God] for the many\"; or, \"shall cause the many to transgress the\ncovenant.\"\n\n[625] Dan. ix. 27. Heb., _Zebach oo-minchah_, \"the bloody and\nunbloody offering.\"\n\n[626] The special allusion, whatever it may precisely mean, is found\nunder three different designations: (i) In viii. 13 it is called\n_happeshang shomeem_; Gk., \u1f21 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2; Vulg., _peccatum\ndesolationis_. (ii) In ix. 27 (comp. ix. 31) it is _shiqqoots\u00eem\nm'shomeem_; Gk., \u03b2\u03b4\u03ad\u03bb\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2; Vulg., _abominatio\ndesolationis_. (iii) In xii. 11 it is _shiqqoots shomeem_; Gk.,\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03b4\u03ad\u03bb\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2; Vulg., _abominatio in desolationem_. Some\ntraditional fact must (as Dr. Jo\u00ebl says) have underlain the rendering\n\"_of desolation_\" for \"_of the desolator_.\" In xi. 31 Theodotion\nhas \u1f20\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \"of things done away with,\" for \u1f10\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03c9\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd. The\nexpression with which the New Testament has made us so familiar is\nfound also in 1 Macc. i. 51 (comp. 1 Macc. vi. 7): \"they built _the\nabomination of desolation_ upon the altar.\" There \"the abomination\"\nseems clearly to mean a smaller altar for heathen sacrifice to Zeus,\nbuilt on the great altar of burnt offering. Perhaps the writer of\nDaniel took the word _shomeem_, \"desolation,\" as a further definition\nof _shiqqoots_, \"abomination,\" from popular speech; and it may have\ninvolved a reference to Lev. xxvi. 15-31: \"If ye shall despise My\nstatutes ... I will even appoint over you terror ... and I will make\nyour cities waste, _and appoint your sanctuaries unto desolation_.\"\nThe old Jewish exegetes referred the prophecy to Antiochus Epiphanes;\nJosephus and later writers applied it to the Romans. Old Christian\nexpositors regarded it as Messianic; but even Jerome records _nine_\ndifferent views of commentators, many of them involving the grossest\nhistoric errors and absurdities. Of Post-Reformation expositors down\nto the present century scarcely two agree in their interpretations.\nAt the present day modern critics of any weight almost unanimously\nregard these chapters, in their primary significance, as _vaticinia\nex eventu_, as some older Jewish and Christian exegetes had already\ndone. Hitzig sarcastically says that the exegetes have here fallen\ninto all sorts of _shiqqoots\u00eem_ themselves.\n\n[627] Comp. \u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (Matt. iv. 5).\n\n[628] Kuenen, _Hist. Crit. Onderzook._, ii. 472.\n\n[629] Any one who thinks the inquiry likely to lead to any better\nresults than those here indicated has only to wade through Z\u00f6ckler's\ncomment in Lange's _Bibelwerk_ (\"Ezekiel and Daniel,\" i. 186-221). It\nis hard to conceive any reading more intolerably wearisome; and at\nthe close it leaves the reader in a state of more hopeless confusion\nthan before. The discussion also occupies many pages of Pusey (pp.\n162-231); but neither in his hypothesis nor any other are the dates\nexact. He can only say, \"It were not of any account if we could not\ninterpret these minor details. _De minimis non curat lex._\" On the\nview that the seventy weeks were to end with the advent of Christ\nwe ask: (1) Why do no two Christian interpreters agree about the\ninterpretation? (2) Why did not the Apostles and Evangelists refer to\nso decisive an evidence?\n\n[630] On this, however, we may remark with Cornill, \"Eine Apokalypse,\nderen \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 unenth\u00fclbar sind, w\u00e4re ein _nonsens_, eine\n_contradictio in adjecto_\" (_Die Siebzig Jahrwochen_, p. 3). The\nindication was obviously _meant_ to be understood, and to the\ncontemporaries of the writer, familiar with the minuter facts of the\nday, it probably was perfectly clear.\n\n[631] Luke ii. 25, 26, 38; Matt. xxiv. 15. Comp. 2 Thess. ii.; Jos.,\n_Antt._, X. xxii. 7.\n\n[632] \"Scio de hac qu\u00e6stione ab eruditissimis viris varie disputatum\n_et unumquemque pro captu ingenii sui dixisse quod senserat_\" (Jer.\n_in Dan._, ix.). In other words, there was not only no received\ninterpretation in St. Jerome's day, but the comments of the Fathers\nwere even then a chaos of arbitrary guesses.\n\n[633] Pusey makes out a table of the divergent interpretation\nof the commentators, whom, in his usual ecclesiastical fashion,\nhe charitably classes together as \"unbelievers,\" from Corrodi\nand Eichhorn down to Herzfeld. But quite as striking a table of\ndivergencies might be drawn up of \"orthodox\" commentators.\n\n[634] Thus Eusebius, without a shadow of any pretence at argument\nmakes the _last week_ mean _seventy years_! (_Dem. Evan._, viii.).\n\n[635] Jost (_Gesch. d. Judenthums_, i. 99) contents himself with\nspeaking of \"die Liebe zu prophetischer Auffassung der Vergangenheit,\nmit m\u00f6glichst genauen Zahlenagaben, befriedigt, _die uns leider nicht\nmehr verst\u00e4ndlich erscheinen_.\"\n\n[636] In Clem. Alex., _Strom._, i. 21.\n\n[637] Cornill, p. 14; Bevan, p. 54.\n\n[638] Sch\u00fcrer, _Hist. of Jewish People_, iii. 53, 54 (E. Tr.). This is\nalso the view of Graf, N\u00f6ldeke, Cornill, and many others. In any case\nwe must not be misled into an impossible style of exegesis of which\nBleck says that \"bei ihr alles m\u00f6glich ist und alles f\u00fcr erlaubt gilt.\"\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n\n                _INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCLUDING VISION_\n\n\nThe remaining section of the Book of Daniel forms but one vision, of\nwhich this chapter is the Introduction or Prologue.\n\nDaniel is here spoken of in the third person.\n\nIt is dated in the third year of Cyrus (B.C. 535).[639] We have already\nbeen told that Daniel lived to see the first year of Cyrus (i. 21).\nThis verse, if accepted historically, would show that at any rate\nDaniel did not return to Palestine with the exiles. Age, high rank,\nand opportunities of usefulness in the Persian Court may have combined\nto render his return undesirable for the interests of his people.\nThe date--the last given in the life of the real or ideal Daniel--is\nperhaps here mentioned to account for the allusions which follow to the\nkingdom of Persia. But with the great and moving fortunes of the Jews\nafter the accession of Cyrus, and even with the beginning of their new\nnational life in Jerusalem, the author is scarcely at all concerned. He\nmakes no mention of Zerubbabel the prince, nor of Joshua the priest,\nnor of the decree of Cyrus, nor of the rebuilding of the Temple; his\nwhole concern is with the petty wars and diplomacy of the reign of\nAntiochus Epiphanes, of which an account is given, so minute as either\nto furnish us with historical materials unknown to any other historian,\nor else is difficult to reconcile with the history of that king's reign\nas it has been hitherto understood.\n\nIn this chapter, as in the two preceding, there are great\ndifficulties and uncertainties about the exact significance of some\nof the verses, and textual emendations have been suggested. The\nreaders of the Expositor's Bible would not, however, be interested\nin minute and dreary philological disquisitions, which have not\nthe smallest moral significance, and lead to no certain result.\nThe difficulties affect points of no doctrinal importance, and\nthe greatest scholars have been unable to arrive at any agreement\nrespecting them. Such difficulties will, therefore, merely be\nmentioned, and I shall content myself with furnishing what appears to\nbe the best authenticated opinion.\n\nThe first and second verses are rendered partly by Ewald and\npartly by other scholars, \"_Truth is the revelation, and distress\nis great;_[640] _therefore understand thou the revelation, since\nthere is understanding of it in the vision._\" The admonition calls\nattention to the importance of \"the word,\" and the fact that reality\nlies beneath its enigmatic and apocalyptic form.\n\nDaniel had been mourning for three full weeks,[641] during which\nhe ate no dainty bread,[642] nor flesh, nor wine, nor did he anoint\nhimself with oil.[643] But in the Passover month of Abib or Nisan,\nthe first month of the year, and on the twenty-fourth day of that\nmonth,[644] he was seated on the bank of the great river, Hiddekel or\nTigris,[645] when, lifting up his eyes, he saw a certain man clothed\nin fine linen like a Jewish priest, and his loins girded with gold\nof Uphaz.[646] His body was like chrysolite,[647] his face flashed\nlike lightning, his eyes were like torches of fire, his arms and feet\ngleamed like polished brass,[648] and the sound of his words was as\nthe sound of a deep murmur.[649] Daniel had companions with him;[650]\nthey did not see the vision, but some supernatural terror fell upon\nthem, and they fled to hide themselves.[651]\n\nAt this great spectacle his strength departed, and his brightness\nwas changed to corruption;[652] and when the vision spoke he\nfell to the earth face downwards. A hand touched him, and partly\nraised him to the trembling support of his knees and the palms of\nhis hands,[653] and a voice said to him, \"Daniel, thou greatly\nbeloved,[654] stand upright, and attend; for I am sent to thee.\" The\nseer was still trembling; but the voice bade him fear not, for his\nprayer had been heard, and for that reason this message had been sent\nto him. Gabriel's coming had, however, been delayed for three weeks,\nby his having to withstand for twenty days the prince of the kingdom\nof Persia.[655] The necessity of continuing the struggle was only\nremoved by the arrival of Michael, one of the chief princes,[656] to\nhelp him, so that Gabriel was no longer needed[657] to resist the\nkings of Persia.[658] The vision was for many days,[659] and he had\ncome to enable Daniel to understand it.\n\nOnce more Daniel was terrified, remained silent, and fixed his eyes\non the ground, until one like the sons of men touched his lips, and\nthen he spoke to apologise for his timidity and faintheartedness.\n\nA third time the vision touched, strengthened, blessed him, and bade\nhim be strong. \"Knowest thou,\" the angel asked, \"why I am come to\nthee? I must return to fight against the Prince of Persia, and while\nI am gone the Prince of Greece [Javan] will come. I will, however,\ntell thee what is announced in the writing of truth, the book of the\ndecrees of heaven, though there is no one to help me against these\nhostile princes of Persia and Javan, except Michael your prince.\"\n\nThe difficulties of the chapter are, as we have said, of a kind that\nthe expositor cannot easily remove. I have given what appears to be\nthe general sense. The questions which the vision raises bear on\nmatters of angelology, as to which all is purposely left vague and\nindeterminate, or which lie in a sphere wholly beyond our cognisance.\n\nIt may first be asked whether the splendid angel of the opening\nvision is also the being in the similitude of a man who thrice\ntouches, encourages, and strengthens Daniel. It is perhaps simplest\nto suppose that this is the case,[660] and that the Great Prince\ntones down his overpowering glory to more familiar human semblance in\norder to dispel the terrors of the seer.\n\nThe general conception of the archangels as princes of the nations,\nand as contending with each other, belongs to the later developments\nof Hebrew opinion on such subjects.[661] Some have supposed that\nthe \"princes\" of Persia and Javan to whom Gabriel and Michael are\nopposed are, not good angels, but demonic powers,--\"the world-rulers\nof this darkness\"--subordinate to the evil spirit whom St. Paul does\nnot hesitate to call \"the god of this world,\" and \"the prince of\nthe powers of the air.\" This is how they account for this \"war in\nheaven,\" so that \"the dragon and his angels\" fight against \"Michael\nand his angels.\" Be that as it may, this mode of presenting the\nguardians of the destinies of nations is one respecting which we have\nno further gleams of revelation to help us.\n\nEwald regards the two last verses of the chapter as a sort of\nsoliloquy of the angel Gabriel with himself. He is pressed for\ntime. His coming has already been delayed by the opposition of the\nguardian-power of the destinies of Persia. If Michael, the great\narchangel of the Hebrews, had not come to his aid, and (so to speak)\nfor a time relieved guard, he would have been unable to come. But\neven the respite leaves him anxious. He seems to feel it almost\nnecessary that he should at once return to contend against the\nPrince of Persia, and against a new adversary, the Prince of Javan,\nwho is on his way to do mischief. Yet on the whole he will stay and\nenlighten Daniel before he takes his flight, although there is no\none but Michael who aids him against these menacing princes. It is\ndifficult to know whether this is meant to be ideal or real--whether\nit represents a struggle of angels against demons, or is merely meant\nfor a sort of parable which represents the to-and-fro conflicting\nimpulses which sway the destinies of earthly kingdoms. In any case\nthe representation is too unique and too remote from earth to enable\nus to understand its spiritual meaning, beyond the bare indication\nthat God sitteth above the water-floods and God remaineth a king for\never. It is another way of showing us that the heathen rage, and\nthe people imagine a vain thing; that the kings of the earth set\nthemselves and the rulers take counsel together; but that they can\nonly accomplish what God's hand and God's counsel have predetermined\nto be done; and that when they attempt to overthrow the destinies\nwhich God has foreordained, \"He that sitteth in the heavens shall\nlaugh them to scorn, the Lord shall have them in derision.\" These,\napart from all complications or developments of angelology or\ndemonology, are the continuous lesson of the Word of God, and are\nconfirmed by all that we decipher of His providence in His ways of\ndealing with nations and with men.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[639] The LXX. date it in \"the _first_ year of Cyrus,\" perhaps an\nintentional alteration (i. 21). We see from Ezra, Nehemiah, and the\nlatest of the Minor Prophets that there was scarcely even an attempt\nto restore the ruined walls of Jerusalem before B.C. 444.\n\n[640] Lit. \"great warfare.\" It will be seen that the A.V. and\nR.V. and other renderings vary widely from this; but nothing very\nimportant depends on the variations. Instead of taking the verbs as\nimperatives addressed to the reader, Hitzig renders, \"He heeded the\nword, and gave heed to the vision.\"\n\n[641] Lit. \"weeks of days\" (Gen. xli. 1; Deut. xxi. 13: \"years of\ndays\").\n\n[642] \"Bread of desires\" is the opposite of \"bread of affliction\" in\nDeut. xvi. 3. Comp. Gen. xxvii. 25; Isa. xxii. 13, etc.\n\n[643] Comp. Amos vi. 6; Ruth iii. 3; 2 Sam. xii. 20, xiv. 2.\n\n[644] He fasted from Abib 3 to 24. The festival of the New Moon might\nprevent him from fasting on Abib 1, 2.\n\n[645] Hiddekel (\"the rushing\") occurs only in Gen. ii. 14. It is the\nAssyrian _idiglat_.\n\n[646] For the girdle see Ezek. xxiii. 15. Ewald (with the Vulg.,\nChald., and Syriac) regards Uphaz as a clerical error for Ophir\n(Psalm xlv. 9). LXX., \u039c\u03c9\u03c6\u03ac\u03b6 (Jer. x. 9, where alone it occurs). The\nLXX. omit it here. Vulg., _Auro obrizo_.\n\n[647] Heb., _eben tarshish_ (Exod. xxviii. 2); Vulg., _crysolithus_;\nR.V. and A.V., \"beryl\" (Ezek. i. 16). Comp. Skr., _tarisha_, \"the sea.\"\n\n[648] Theodot., \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7; LXX., \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 (Rev. i. 15)--lit.\n\"foot-hold\"; Vulg., _qu\u00e6 deorsum sunt usque ad pedes_.\n\n[649] This description of the vision follows Ezek. i. 16-24, ix. 2,\nand is followed in Rev. i. 13-15. The \"deep murmur\" is referred to\nthe sound of the sea by St. John; A.V., \"the voice of a multitude\";\nLXX., \u03b8\u03cc\u03c1\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2. Comp. Isa. xiii. 4; Ezek. xliii. 2.\n\n[650] Rashi guesses that they were Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.\n\n[651] Comp. Acts ix. 7, xxii. 11.\n\n[652] Comp. Hab. iii. 16; Dan. viii. 18.\n\n[653] Lit. \"shook\" or \"caused me to tremble upon my knees and the\npalms of my hand.\"\n\n[654] x. 11. LXX., \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36; Tert., _De Jejun._, 7, \"homo\nes miserabilis\" (_sc._, \"jejunando\").\n\n[655] The protecting genius of Persia (Isa. xxiv. 21; Psalm lxxxii.;\nEcclus. xvii. 17).\n\n[656] Michael, \"who is like God\" (Jude 9; Rev. xii. 7).\n\n[657] Heb., _n\u00f4thart\u00ee_. \"I came off victorious,\" or \"obtained the\nprecedence\" (Luther, Gesenius, etc.); \"I was delayed\" (Hitzig); \"I\nwas superfluous\" (Ewald); \"Was left over\" (Z\u00f6ckler); \"I remained\"\n(A.V.); \"Was not needed\" (R.V. marg.). The LXX. and Theodoret seem to\nfollow another text.\n\n[658] LXX., \"with the army of the king of the Persians.\"\n\n[659] Again the text and rendering are uncertain.\n\n[660] So Hitzig and Ewald. The view that they are distinct persons\nis taken by Z\u00f6ckler, Von Lengerke, etc. Other guesses are that the\n\"man clothed in linen\" is the angel who called Gabriel (viii. 16); or\nMichael; or \"the angel of the Covenant\" (Vitringa); or Christ; or \"he\nwho letteth\" (\u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd, 2 Thess. ii. 7), whom Z\u00f6ckler takes to be\n\"the good principle of the world-power.\"\n\n[661] Thus in the LXX. (Dent, xxxii. 8) we read of angels of the\nnations. See too Isa. xlvi. 2; Jer. xlvi. 25. Comp. Baruch iv. 7;\nEcclus. xvii. 17; Frankel, _Vorstudien_, p. 66.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n\n              _AN ENIGMATIC PROPHECY PASSING INTO DETAILS\n                  OF THE REIGN OF ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES_\n\n     \"Pone h\u00e6c dici de Antiocho, quid nocet religioni\n     nostr\u00e6?\"--HIERON. _ed._ VALLARS, v. 722.\n\n\nIf this chapter were indeed the utterance of a prophet in the\nBabylonian Exile, nearly four hundred years before the events--events\nof which many are of small comparative importance in the world's\nhistory--which are here so enigmatically and yet so minutely\ndepicted, the revelation would be the most unique and perplexing in\nthe whole Scriptures. It would represent a sudden and total departure\nfrom every method of God's providence and of God's manifestation of\nHis will to the minds of the prophets. It would stand absolutely\nand abnormally alone as an abandonment of the limitations of all\nelse which has ever been foretold. And it would then be still more\nsurprising that such a reversal of the entire economy of prophecy\nshould not only be so widely separated in tone from the high moral\nand spiritual lessons which it was the special glory of prophecy to\ninculcate, but should come to us entirely devoid of those decisive\ncredentials which could alone suffice to command our conviction of\nits genuineness and authenticity. \"We find in this chapter,\" says\nMr. Bevan, \"a complete survey of the history from the beginning\nof the Persian period down to the time of the author. Here, even\nmore than in the earlier vision, we are able to perceive how the\naccount gradually becomes more definite as it approaches the latter\npart of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, and how it then passes\nsuddenly from the domain of historical facts to that of ideal\nexpectations.\"[662] In recent days, when the force of truth has\ncompelled so many earnest and honest thinkers to the acceptance of\nhistoric and literary criticism, the few scholars who are still able\nto maintain the traditional views about the Book of Daniel find\nthemselves driven, like Z\u00f6ckler and others, to admit that even if\nthe Book of Daniel as a whole can be regarded as the production of\nthe exiled seer five and a half centuries before Christ, yet in this\nchapter at any rate there must be large interpolations.[663]\n\nThere is here an unfortunate division of the chapters. The first\nverse of chap. xi. clearly belongs to the last verses of chap. x.\nIt seems to furnish the reason why Gabriel could rely on the help\nof Michael, and therefore may delay for a few moments his return\nto the scene of conflict with the Prince of Persia and the coming\nKing of Javan. Michael will for that brief period undertake the sole\nresponsibility of maintaining the struggle, because Gabriel has put\nhim under a direct obligation by special assistance which he rendered\nto him only a little while previously in the first year of the Median\nDarius.[664] Now, therefore, Gabriel, though in haste, will announce\nto Daniel the truth.\n\nThe announcement occupies five sections.\n\nFIRST SECTION (xi. 2-9).--Events from the rise of Alexander the\nGreat (B.C. 336) to the death of Seleucus Nicator (B.C. 280). There\nare to be three kings of Persia after Cyrus (who is then reigning),\nof whom the third is to be the richest;[665] and \"when he is waxed\nstrong through his riches, he shall stir up the all[666] against the\nrealm of Javan.\"\n\nThere were of course many more than four kings of Persia[667]: viz.--\n\n                                                    B.C.\n                 Cyrus                              536\n                 Cambyses                           529\n                 Pseudo-Smerdis                     522\n                 Darius Hystaspis                   521\n                 Xerxes I.                          485\n                 Artaxerxes I. (Longimanus)         464\n                 Xerxes II.                         425\n                 Sogdianus                          425\n                 Darius Nothus                      424\n                 Artaxerxes II. (Mnemon)            405\n                 Artaxerxes III.                    359\n                 Darius Codomannus                  336\n\nBut probably the writer had no historic sources to which to refer,\nand only four Persian kings are prominent in Scripture--Cyrus,\nDarius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. Darius Codomannus is indeed mentioned\nin Neh. xii. 22, but might have easily been overlooked, and even\nconfounded with another Darius in uncritical and unhistorical\ntimes. The rich fourth king who \"stirs up the all against the realm\nof Grecia\" might be meant for Artaxerxes I., but more probably\nrefers to Xerxes (Achashverosh, or Ahasuerus), and his immense and\nostentatious invasion of Greece (B.C. 480). His enormous wealth is\ndwelt upon by Herodotus.[668]\n\nVer. 3 (B.C. 336-323).--Then shall rise a mighty king (Alexander the\nGreat), and shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his\nwill. \"Fortunam solus omnium mortalium in potestate habuit,\" says his\nhistorian, Quintus Curtius.[669]\n\nVer. 4 (B.C. 323).--But when he is at the apparent zenith of his\nstrength his kingdom shall be broken, and shall not descend to any of\nhis posterity,[670] but (B.C. 323-301) shall be for others, and shall\nultimately (after the Battle of Ipsus, B.C. 301) be divided towards\nthe four winds of heaven, into the kingdoms of Cassander (Greece and\nMacedonia), Ptolemy (Egypt, C\u0153le-Syria, and Palestine), Lysimachus\n(Asia Minor), and Seleucus (Upper Asia).\n\nVer. 5.--Of these four kingdoms and their kings the vision is only\nconcerned with two--the kings of the South[671] (_i.e._, the Lagid\u00e6,\nor Egyptian Ptolemies, who sprang from Ptolemy Lagos), and the kings\nof the North (_i.e._, the Antiochian Seleucid\u00e6). They alone are\nsingled out because the Holy Land became a sphere of contentions\nbetween these rival dynasties.[672]\n\nB.C. 306.--The King of the South (Ptolemy Soter, son of Lagos) shall\nbe strong, and shall ultimately assume the title of Ptolemy I., King\nof Egypt.\n\nBut one of his princes or generals (Seleucus Nicator) shall be\nstronger,[673] and, asserting his independence, shall establish a\ngreat dominion over Northern Syria and Babylonia.\n\nVer. 6 (B.C. 250).--The vision then passes over the reign of\nAntiochus II. (Soter), and proceeds to say that \"at the end of\nyears\" (_i.e._, some half-century later, B.C. 250) the kings of the\nNorth and South should form a matrimonial alliance. The daughter of\nthe King of the South--the Egyptian Princess Berenice, daughter of\nPtolemy II. (Philadelphus), should come to the King of the North\n(Antiochus Theos) to make an agreement. This agreement (marg.,\n\"equitable conditions\") was that Antiochus Theos should divorce\nhis wife and half-sister Laodice, and disinherit her children, and\nbequeath the throne to any future child of Berenice, who would\nthus unite the empires of the Ptolemies and the Seleucid\u00e6.[674]\nBerenice took with her so vast a dowry that she was called \"the\ndowry-bringer\" (\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2).[675] Antiochus himself accompanied her\nas far as Pelusium (B.C. 247). But the compact ended in nothing but\ncalamity. For, two years after, Ptolemy II. died, leaving an infant\nchild by Berenice. But Berenice did \"_not retain the strength of\nher arm_,\"[676] since the military force which accompanied her\nproved powerless for her protection; nor did Ptolemy II. abide,\nnor any support which he could render. On the contrary, there was\noverwhelming disaster. Berenice's escort, her father, her husband,\nall perished, and she herself and her infant child were murdered by\nher rival, Laodice (B.C. 246), in the sanctuary of Daphne, whither\nshe had fled for refuge.\n\nVer. 7 (B.C. 285-247).--But the murder of Berenice shall be well\navenged. For \"out of a shoot from her roots\" stood up one in his\noffice, even her brother Ptolemy III. (Euergetes), who, unlike the\neffeminate Ptolemy II., did not entrust his wars to his generals, but\ncame himself to his army. He shall completely conquer the King of the\nNorth (Seleucus II., Kallinikos, son of Antiochus Theos and Laodice),\nshall seize his fortress (Seleucia, the port of Antioch).[677]\n\nVer. 8 (B.C. 247).--In this campaign Ptolemy Euergetes, who earned\nthe title of \"Benefactor\" by this vigorous invasion, shall not only\nwin immense booty--four thousand talents of gold and many jewels,\nand forty thousand talents of silver--but shall also carry back with\nhim to Egypt the two thousand five hundred molten images,[678] and\nidolatrous vessels, which, two hundred and eighty years before (B.C.\n527), Cambyses had carried away from Egypt.[679]\n\nAfter this success he will, for some years, refrain from attacking\nthe Seleucid kings.[680]\n\nVer. 9 (B.C. 240).--Seleucus Kallinikos makes an attempt to avenge\nthe shame and loss of the invasion of Syria by invading Egypt, but he\nreturns to his own land totally foiled and defeated, for his fleet\nwas destroyed by a storm.[681]\n\nSECOND SECTION (vv. 10-19).--Events from the death of Ptolemy\nEuergetes (B.C. 247) to the death of Antiochus III. (the Great, B.C.\n175). In the following verses, as Behrmann observes, there is a sort\nof dance of shadows, only fully intelligible to the initiated.\n\nVer. 10.--The sons of Seleucus Kallinikos were Seleucus III. (Keraunos,\nB.C. 227-224) and Antiochus the Great (B.C. 224-187). Keraunos only\nreigned two years, and in B.C. 224 his brother Antiochus III. succeeded\nhim. Both kings assembled immense forces to avenge the insult of the\nEgyptian invasion, the defeat of their father, and the retention\nof their port and fortress of Seleucia. It was only sixteen miles\nfrom Antioch, and being still garrisoned by Egyptians, constituted a\nstanding danger and insult to their capital city.\n\nVer. 11.--After twenty-seven years the port of Seleucia is wrested\nfrom the Egyptians by Antiochus the Great, and he so completely\nreverses the former successes of the King of the South as to conquer\nSyria as far as Gaza.\n\nVer. 12 (B.C. 217).--But at last the young Egyptian King, Ptolemy IV.\n(Philopator), is roused from his dissipation and effeminacy, advances\nto Raphia (southwest of Gaza) with a great army of twenty thousand\nfoot, five thousand horse, and seventy-three elephants, and there,\nto his own immense self-exaltation, he inflicts a severe defeat\non Antiochus, and \"_casts down tens of thousands_.\"[682] Yet the\nvictory is illusive, although it enables Ptolemy to annex Palestine\nto Egypt. For Ptolemy \"_shall not show himself strong_,\" but shall,\nby his supineness, and by making a speedy peace, throw away all the\nfruits of his victory, while he returns to his past dissipation (B.C.\n217-204).[683]\n\nVer. 13.--Twelve years later (B.C. 205) Ptolemy Philopator died,\nleaving an infant son, Ptolemy Epiphanes. Antiochus, smarting from\nhis defeat at Raphia, again assembled an army which was still greater\nthan before (B.C. 203), and much war-material. In the intervening\nyears he had won great victories in the East as far as India.\n\nVer. 14.--Antiochus shall be aided by the fact that many--including his\nally Philip, King of Macedon, and various rebel-subjects of Ptolemy\nEpiphanes--stood up against the King of Egypt and wrested Ph\u0153nicia and\nSouthern Syria from him. The Syrians were further strengthened by the\nassistance of the \"children of the violent\" among the Jews, \"_who shall\nlift themselves up to fulfil the vision of the oracle;_[684] _but\nthey shall fall_.\" We read in Josephus that many of the Jews helped\nAntiochus;[685] but the allusion to \"the vision\" is entirely obscure.\nEwald supposes a reference to some prophecy no longer extant. Dr. Jo\u00ebl\nthinks that the Hellenising Jews may have referred to Isa. xix. in\nfavour of the plans of Antiochus against Egypt.\n\nVv. 15, 16.--But however much any of the Jews may have helped\nAntiochus under the hope of ultimately regaining their independence,\ntheir hopes were frustrated. The Syrian King came, besieged, and took\na well-fenced city--perhaps an allusion to the fact that he wrested\nSidon from the Egyptians. After his great victory over the Egyptian\ngeneral Scopas at Mount Panium (B.C. 198), the routed Egyptian\nforces, to the number of ten thousand, flung themselves into that\ncity.[686] This campaign ruined the interests of Egypt in Palestine,\n\"the glorious land.\"[687] Palestine now passed to Antiochus, who took\npossession \"_with destruction in his hand_.\"\n\nVer. 17 (B.C. 198-195).--After this there shall again be an attempt\nat \"equitable negotiations\"; by which, however, Antiochus hoped to\nget final possession of Egypt and destroy it. He arranged a marriage\nbetween \"_a daughter of women_\"--his daughter Cleopatra--and Ptolemy\nEpiphanes. But this attempt also entirely failed.\n\nVer. 18 (B.C. 190).--Antiochus therefore \"_sets his face in another\ndirection_,\" and tries to conquer the islands and coasts of Asia\nMinor. But a captain--the Roman general, Lucius Cornelius Scipio\nAsiaticus--puts an end to the insolent scorn with which he had spoken\nof the Romans, and pays him back with equal scorn,[688] utterly\ndefeating him in the great Battle of Magnesia (B.C. 190), and forcing\nhim to ignominious terms.\n\nVer. 19 (B.C. 175).--Antiochus next turns his attention (\"_sets his\nface_\") to strengthen the fortresses of his own land in the east and\nwest; but making an attempt to recruit his dissipated wealth by the\nplunder of the Temple of Belus in Elymais, \"_stumbles and falls, and\nis not found_.\"\n\nTHIRD SECTION (vv. 20-27).--Events under Seleucus Philopator down to\nthe first attempts of Antiochus Epiphanes against Egypt (B.C. 170).\n\nVer. 20.--Seleucus Philopator (B.C. 187-176) had a character the\nreverse of his father's. He was no restless seeker for glory, but\ndesired wealth and quietness.[689] Among the Jews, however, he had a\nvery evil reputation, for he sent an _exactor_--a mere tax-collector,\nHeliodorus--\"_to pass through the glory of the kingdom_.\"[690] He\nonly reigned twelve years, and then was \"broken\"--_i.e._, murdered\nby Heliodorus, neither in anger nor in battle, but by poison\nadministered by this \"tax-collector.\" The versions all vary, but I\nfeel little doubt that Dr. Jo\u00ebl is right when he sees in the curious\nphrase _nogesh heder malkooth_, \"one that shall cause a raiser of\ntaxes to pass over the kingdom\"--of which neither Theodotion nor\nthe Vulgate can make anything--a cryptographic allusion to the name\n_Heliodorus_;[691] and possibly the predicted fate may (by a change\nof subject) also refer to the fact that Heliodorus was checked,\nnot by force, but by the vision in the Temple (2 Macc. v. 18, iii.\n24-29). We find from 2 Macc. iv. 1 that Simeon, the governor of the\nTemple, charged Onias with a trick to terrify Heliodorus. This is a\nvery probable view of what occurred.[692]\n\nVer. 21.--Seleucus Philopator died B.C. 175 without an heir. This\nmade room for a contemptible person, a reprobate, who had no real\nclaim to royal dignity,[693] being only a younger son of Antiochus\nthe Great. He came by surprise, \"_in time of security_,\" and obtained\nthe kingdom by flatteries.[694]\n\nVer. 22.--Yet \"_the overflowing wings of Egypt_\" (or \"the arms of\na flood\") \"_were swept away before him and broken; yea, and even\na covenanted or allied prince_.\" Some explain this of his nephew\nPtolemy Philometor, others of Onias III., \"the prince of the\ncovenant\"--_i.e._, the princely high priest, whom Antiochus displaced\nin favour of his brother, the apostate Joshua, who Gr\u00e6cised his name\ninto Jason, as his brother Onias did in calling himself Menelaus.[695]\n\nVer. 23.--This mean king should prosper by deceit which he practised\non all connected with him;[696] and though at first he had but few\nadherents, he should creep into power.\n\nVer. 24.--\"_In time of security shall he come, even upon the fattest\nplaces of the province._\" By this may be meant his invasions of\nGalilee and Lower Egypt. Acting unlike any of his royal predecessors,\nhe shall lavishly scatter his gains and his booty among needy\nfollowers,[697] and shall plot to seize Pelusium, Naucratis,\nAlexandria, and other strongholds of Egypt for a time.\n\nVer. 25.--After this (B.C. 171) he shall, with a \"_great army_,\"\nseriously undertake his first invasion of Egypt, and shall be met by\nhis nephew Ptolemy Philometor with another immense army. In spite of\nthis, the young Egyptian King shall fail through the treachery of his\nown courtiers. He shall be outwitted and treacherously undermined by\nhis uncle Antiochus. Yes! even while his army is fighting, and many\nare being slain, the very men who \"_eat of his dainties_,\" even his\nfavourite and trusted courtiers Eul\u00e6us and Len\u00e6us, will be devising\nhis ruin, and his army shall be swept away.\n\nVv. 26, 27 (B.C. 174).--The Syrians and the Egyptian King, nephew\nand uncle, shall in nominal amity sit at one banquet, eating from\none table;[698] but all the while they will be distrustfully\nplotting against each other and \"_speaking lies_\" to each other.\nAntiochus will pretend to ally himself with the young Philometor\nagainst his brother Ptolemy Euergetes II.--generally known by\nhis derisive nickname as Ptolemy Physkon[699]--whom after eleven\nmonths the Alexandrians had proclaimed king. But all these plots and\ncounter-plots should be of none effect, for the end was not yet.\n\nFOURTH SECTION (vv. 28-35).--Events between the first attack of\nAntiochus on Jerusalem (B.C. 170) and his plunder of the Temple to\nthe first revolt of the Maccabees (B.C. 167).\n\nVer. 28 (B.C. 168).--Returning from Egypt with great plunder, Antiochus\nshall set himself against the Holy Covenant. He put down the usurping\nhigh priest Jason, who, with much slaughter, had driven out his rival\nusurper and brother, Menelaus. He massacred many Jews, and returned to\nAntioch enriched with golden vessels seized from the Temple.[700]\n\nVer. 29.--In B.C. 168 Antiochus again invaded Egypt, but with none of\nthe former splendid results. For Ptolemy Philometor and Physkon had\njoined in sending an embassy to Rome to ask for help and protection.\nIn consequence of this, \"_ships from Kittim_\"[701]--namely, the Roman\nfleet--came against him, bringing the Roman commissioner, Gaius\nPopilius L\u00e6nas. When Popilius met Antiochus, the king put out his\nhand to embrace him; but the Roman merely held out his tablets, and\nbade Antiochus read the Roman demand that he and his army should at\nonce evacuate Egypt. \"I will consult my friends on the subject,\" said\nAntiochus. Popilius, with infinite haughtiness and audacity, simply\ndrew a circle in the sand with his vine-stick round the spot on which\nthe king stood, and said, \"You must decide before you step out of\nthat circle.\" Antiochus stood amazed and humiliated; but seeing that\nthere was no help for it, promised in despair to do all that the\nRomans demanded.[702]\n\nVer. 30.--Returning from Egypt in an indignant frame of mind, he\nturned his exasperation against the Jews and the Holy Covenant,\nespecially extending his approval to those who apostatised from it.\n\nVer. 31.--Then (B.C. 168) shall come the climax of horror. Antiochus\nshall send troops to the Holy Land, who shall desecrate the sanctuary\nand fortress of the Temple, and abolish the daily sacrifice (Kisleu\n15), and set up the abomination that maketh desolate.[703]\n\nVer. 32.--To carry out these ends the better, and with the express\npurpose of putting an end to the Jewish religion, he shall pervert\nor \"make profane\" by flatteries the renegades who are ready to\napostatise from the faith of their fathers. But there shall be a\nfaithful remnant who will bravely resist him to the uttermost. \"_The\npeople who know their God will be valiant, and do great deeds._\"\n\nVer. 33.--To keep alive the national faith \"_wise teachers of the\npeople shall instruct many_,\" and will draw upon their own heads the\nfury of persecution, so that many shall fall by sword, and by flame,\nand by captivity, and by spoliation for many days.\n\nVer. 34.--But in the midst of this fierce onslaught of cruelty they\nshall be \"_holpen with a little help_.\" There shall arise the sect\nof the _Chasid\u00eem_, or \"the Pious,\" bound together by _Tugendbund_\nto maintain the Laws which Israel received from Moses of old.[704]\nThese good and faithful champions of a righteous cause will indeed be\nweakened by the false adherence of waverers and flatterers.\n\nVer. 35.--To purge the party from such spies and Laodiceans, the\nteachers, like the aged priest Mattathias at Modin, and the aged\nscribe Eleazar, will have to brave even martyrdom itself till the\ntime of the end.\n\nFIFTH SECTION (vv. 36-45, B.C. 147-164).--Events from the beginning\nof the Maccabean rising to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes.\n\nVer. 36.--Antiochus will grow more arbitrary, more insolent, more\nblasphemous, from day to day, calling himself \"God\" (Theos) on his\ncoins, and requiring all his subjects to be of his religion,[705] and\nso even more kindling against himself the wrath of the God of gods by\nhis monstrous utterances, until the final doom has fallen.\n\nVer. 37.--He will, in fact, make himself his own god, paying no regard\n(by comparison) to his national or local god, the Olympian Zeus, nor to\nthe Syrian deity, Tammuz-Adonis, \"the desire of women.\"[706]\n\n            \"Tammuz came next behind,\n             Whose yearly wound in Lebanon allured\n             The Syrian damsels to lament his fate\n             In amorous ditties all a summer day.\n             While smooth Adonis from his native rock\n             Ran purple to the sea--supposed with blood\n             Of Tammuz yearly wounded. The love tale\n             Infected Zion's daughters with like heat.\"\n\nVer. 38.--The only God to whom he shall pay marked respect shall be\nthe Roman Jupiter, the god of the Capitol. To this god, to Jupiter\nCapitolinus, not to his own Zeus Olympios, the god of his Greek\nfathers, he shall erect a temple in his capital city of Antioch, and\nadorn it with gold and silver and precious stones.[707]\n\nVer. 39.--\"_And he shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the\nhelp of a strange god_\"[708]--namely, the Capitoline Jupiter (Zeus\nPolieus)--and shall crowd the strongholds of Jud\u00e6a with heathen\ncolonists who worship the Tyrian Hercules (Melkart) and other idols;\nand to these heathen he shall give wealth and power.\n\nVer. 40.--But his evil career shall be cut short. Egypt, under the\nnow-allied brothers Philometor and Physkon, shall unite to thrust at\nhim. Antiochus will advance against them like a whirlwind, with many\nchariots and horsemen, and with the aid of a fleet.\n\nVv. 41-45.--In the course of his march he shall pass through\nPalestine, \"_the glorious land_,\"[709] with disastrous injury; but\nEdom, Moab, and the bloom of the kingdom of Ammon shall escape his\nhand. Egypt, however, shall not escape. By the aid of the Libyans\nand Ethiopians who are in his train he shall plunder Egypt of its\ntreasures.[710]\n\nHow far these events correspond to historic realities is uncertain.\nJerome says that Antiochus invaded Egypt a third time in B.C. 165,\nthe eleventh year of his reign; but there are no historic traces of\nsuch an invasion, and most certainly Antiochus towards the close\nof his reign, instead of being enriched with vast Egyptian spoils,\nwas struggling with chronic lack of means. Some therefore suppose\nthat the writer composed and published his enigmatic sketch of\nthese events before the close of the reign of Antiochus, and that\nhe is here passing from contemporary fact into a region of ideal\nanticipations which were never actually fulfilled.\n\nVer. 43 (B.C. 165).--In the midst of this devastating invasion of\nEgypt, Antiochus shall be troubled with disquieting rumours of\ntroubles in Palestine and other realms of his kingdom. He will set\nout with utter fury to subjugate and to destroy, determining above\nall to suppress the heroic Maccabean revolt which had inflicted such\nhumiliating disasters upon his generals, Seron, Apollonius, and\nLysias.[711]\n\nVer. 45 (B.C. 164).--He shall indeed advance so far as to pitch his\npalatial tent[712] \"_between the sea and the mountain of the High\nGlory_\"; but he will come to a disastrous and an unassisted end.[713]\n\nThese latter events either do not correspond with the actual history,\nor cannot be verified. So far as we know Antiochus did not invade\nEgypt at all after B.C. 168. Still less did he advance from Egypt,\nor pitch his tent anywhere near Mount Zion. Nor did he die in\nPalestine, but in Persia (B.C. 165). The writer, indeed, strong in\nfaith, anticipated, and rightly, that Antiochus would come to an\nignominious and a sudden end--God shooting at him with a swift arrow,\nso that he should be wounded. But all accurate details seem suddenly\nto stop short with the doings in the fourth section, which may refer\nto the strange conduct of Antiochus in his great festival in honour\nof Jupiter at Daphne. Had the writer published his book _after_\nthis date, he could not surely have failed to speak with triumphant\ngratitude and exultation of the heroic stand made by Judas Maccab\u00e6us\nand the splendid victories which restored hope and glory to the Holy\nLand. I therefore regard these verses as a description rather of\nideal expectation than of historic facts.\n\nWe find notices of Antiochus in the Books of Maccabees, in Josephus,\nin St. Jerome's Commentary on Daniel, and in Appian's _Syriaca_. We\nshould know more of him and be better able to explain some of the\nallusions in this chapter if the writings of the secular historians\nhad not come down to us in so fragmentary a condition. The relevant\nportions of Callinicus Sutoricus, Diodorus Siculus, Polybius,\nPosidonius, Claudius, Theon, Andronicus, Alypius, and others are\nall lost--except a few fragments which we have at second or third\nhand. Porphyry introduced quotations from these authors into the\ntwelfth book of his _Arguments against the Christians_; but we only\nknow his book from Jerome's _ex-parte_ quotations. Other Christian\ntreatises, written in answer to Porphyry by Apollinaris, Eusebius,\nand Methodius, are only preserved in a few sentences by Nicetas and\nJohn of Damascus. The loss of Porphyry and Apollinarius is especially\nto be regretted. Jerome says that it was the extraordinarily minute\ncorrespondence of this chapter of Daniel with the history of\nAntiochus Epiphanes that led Porphyry to the conviction that it only\ncontained _vaticinia ex eventu_.[714]\n\nAntiochus died at Tab\u00e6 in Paratac\u00e6ne on the frontiers of Persia\nand Babylonia about B.C. 163. The Jewish account of his remorseful\ndeathbed may be read in 1 Macc. vi. 1-16: \"He laid him down upon\nhis bed, and fell sick for grief; and there he continued many days,\nfor his grief was ever more and more; and he made account that he\nshould die.\" He left a son, Antiochus Eupator, aged nine, under the\ncharge of his flatterer and foster-brother Philip.[715] Recalling the\nwrongs he had inflicted on Jud\u00e6a and Jerusalem, he said: \"I perceive,\ntherefore, that for this cause these troubles are come upon me; and,\nbehold, I perish through great grief in a strange land.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[662] _Daniel_, p. 162.\n\n[663] On this chapter see Smend, _Zeitschr. f\u00fcr Alttest.\nWissenschaft_, v. 241.\n\n[664] Ewald, _Prophets_, v. 293 (E. Tr.).\n\n[665] Doubtless the three mentioned in Ezra iv. 5-7: Ahasuerus\n(Xerxes), Artaxerxes, and Darius.\n\n[666] Heb., _Hakk\u00f4l_--lit. \"the all.\" There were probably Jews in his\narmy (_Jos. c. Ap._, I. 22: comp. Herod., vii. 89).\n\n[667] Z\u00f6ckler met the difficulty by calling the number four\n\"symbolic,\" a method as easy as it is profoundly unsatisfactory.\n\n[668] Herod., iii. 96, iv. 27-29.\n\n[669] Q. Curt., X. v. 35.\n\n[670] See Grote, xii. 133. Alexander had a natural son, Herakles,\nand a posthumous son, Alexander, by Roxana. Both were murdered--the\nformer by Polysperchon. See Diod. Sic., xix. 105, xx. 28; Pausan.,\nix. 7; Justin, xv. 2; Appian, _Syr._, c. 51.\n\n[671] The King of the Negeb (comp. Isa. xxx. 6, 7). LXX., Egypt.\nPtolemy assumed the crown about B.C. 304.\n\n[672] See Stade, _Gesch._, ii. 276. Seleucus Nicator was deemed so\nimportant as to give his name to the Seleucid \u00e6ra (1 Macc. i. 10, \u1f14\u03c4\u03b7\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd).\n\n[673] Diod. Sic., xix. 55-58; Appian, _Syr._, c. 52. He ruled from\nPhrygia to the Indus, and was the most powerful of the Diadochi. The\nword _one_ is not expressed in the Hebrew: \"but as for _one_ of his\ncaptains.\" There may be some corruption of the text. Seleucus can\nscarcely be regarded as a vassal of Ptolemy, but of Alexander.\n\n[674] Appian, _Syr._, c. 55; Poly\u00e6nus, viii. 50; Justin, xxvii. 1. See\nHerzberg, _Gesch. v. Hellas u. Rom._, i. 576. Dates are not certain.\n\n[675] Jer., _ad loc._ (Dan. xi. 6).\n\n[676] The rendering is much disputed, and some versions, punctuating\ndifferently, have, \"his seed [_i.e._, his daughter] shall not stand.\"\nEvery clause of the passage has received varying interpretations.\n\n[677] Polyb., v. 58.\n\n[678] Heb., _nas\u00eek\u00eem_; LXX., \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ac; Vulg., _sculptilia_.\n\n[679] Herodotus (iii. 47) says that he ordered the images to be\nburnt. On the Marmor Adulitanum, Ptolemy Euergetes boasted that he\nhad united Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Persia, Susiana, Media, and all\ncountries as far as Bactria under his rule. The inscription was seen\nat Adules by Cosmas Indicopleustes, and recorded by him (Wolf u.\nButtmann, _Museum_, ii. 162).\n\n[680] R.V. marg., \"He shall continue more years than the King of\nthe North.\" Ptolemy Euergetes died B.C. 247; Seleucus Kallinikos,\nB.C. 225. It must be borne in mind that in almost every clause the\nreadings, renderings, and interpolations vary. I give what seem to be\nthe best attested and the most probable.\n\n[681] Justin, xxvii. 2.\n\n[682] See 3 Macc. i. 2-8; Jos., _B. J._, IV. xi. 5. The Seleucid army\nlost ten thousand foot, three hundred horse, five elephants, and more\nthan four thousand prisoners (Polyb., v. 86).\n\n[683] Justin says (xxx. i): \"Spoliasset regem Antiochum si fortunam\nvirtute juvisset.\"\n\n[684] _Ch\u0101z\u00f4n_, \"the vision.\" Gr\u00e4tz renders it, \"to cause the Law to\ntotter\"; but this cannot be right.\n\n[685] _E.g._, Joseph, and his son Hyrcanus.\n\n[686] Polyb., xxviii. 1; Liv., xxxiii. 19; Jos., _Antt._, XII. iii.\n4. See St. Jerome, _ad loc._\n\n[687] Vulg., _terra inclyta_; but in viii. 9, _fortitudo_.\n\n[688] In the choice of the Hebrew words _qats\u00een cher'patho lo_, Dr.\nJo\u00ebl suspects a sort of anagram of Cornelius Scipio, like the \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 for Ptolemy, and the \u1f35\u03bf\u03bd \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 for Arsione in Lycophron; but\nthe real meaning and rendering of the verse are highly uncertain.\n\n[689] Liv., xii. 19: \"Otiosum, nullisque admodum rebus gestis\nnobilitatum.\"\n\n[690] 2 Macc. iii. 7 ff. The reading and rendering are very uncertain.\n\n[691] Jo\u00ebl, _Notizen_, p. 16.\n\n[692] See Jost, i. 110.\n\n[693] Vulg., _vilissimus et indignus decore regio_; R.V., \"to whom\nthey had not given the honour of a kingdom\"; Ewald, \"upon him shall\nnot be set the splendour of a kingdom.\" Dr. Jo\u00ebl sees in _nibzeh_ a\ncontemptuous paronomasia on \"Epiphanes\" (_Notizen_, p. 17).\n\n[694] Dan. viii. 22; 2 Macc. v. 25.\n\n[695] Jos., _Antt._, XII. v. 1.\n\n[696] Jerome, _amicitias simulans_.\n\n[697] See 1 Macc. iii. 30; 1 Macc. i. 19; Polyb., xxvii. 17; Diod.\nSic., xxx. 22. What his unkingly stratagems were we do not know.\n\n[698] Liv., xliv. 19: \"Antiochus per honestam speciem majoris\nPtolem\u00e6i reducendi in regnum,\" etc.\n\n[699] Or \"Paunch.\" He was so called from his corpulence. Comp. the\nname Mirabeau, _Tonneau_.\n\n[700] 2 Macc. v. 5-21; 1 Macc. i. 20-24.\n\n[701] The LXX. render this \u1f25\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u1fec\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9. Comp. Numb. xxiv. 24;\nJerome, _Trieres et Romani_. On \"Chittim\" (Gen. x. 4) see Jos.,\n_Antt._, I. vi. 1.\n\n[702] Polyb., xxix. 11; Appian, _Syr._, 66; Liv., xlv. 12; Vell.\nPaterc., i. 10. According to Polybius (xxxi. 5), Epiphanes, by his\ncrafty dissimulation, afterwards completely hoodwinked the ambassador\nTiberius Gracchus.\n\n[703] 2 Macc. vi. 2. Our best available historical comments on this\nchapter are to be found in the two books of Maccabees.\n\n[704] 1 Macc. ii. 42, iii. 11, iv. 14, vii. 13; 2 Macc. xiv. 6.\n\n[705] Diod. Sic, xxxi. 1; 1 Macc. i. 43. Polybius (xxxi. 4) says \"he\ncommitted sacrilege in most of the temples\" (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd).\n\n[706] Jahn (_Heb. Com._, \u00a7 xcii.) sees in the words \"neither shall he\nregard the desire of women\" an allusion to his exclusion of women from\nthe festival at Daphne. Some explain the passage by his robbery of the\nTemple of Artemis or Aphrodite in Elymais (Polyb., xxxi. 11; Appian,\n_Syr._, 66; 1 Macc. vi. 1-4; 2 Macc. ix. 2). All is vague and uncertain.\n\n[707] Polyb., xxvi. 10; 2 Macc. vi. 2; Liv., xii. 20. The Hebrew\n_Eloah Mauzz\u00eem_ is understood by the LXX., Theodotion, the Vulgate,\nand Luther to be a god called Mauzzim (\u039c\u03b1\u03c9\u03b6\u03b5\u03af\u03bc). See Herzog,\n_Real-Encycl._, _s.v._ \"Meussin.\" Cicero (_c. Verr._, vii. 72) calls\nthe Capitol _arx omnium nationum_. The reader must judge for himself\nas to the validity of the remark of Pusey (p. 92), that \"all this is\nalien from the character of Antiochus.\"\n\n[708] R.V. The translation is difficult and uncertain.\n\n[709] The LXX. here render this expression (which puzzled them, and\nwhich they omit in vv. 16, 41) by \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. Theodot., \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03b5\u03af\u03bc.\n\n[710] Ewald takes these for metaphoric designations of the\nHellenising Jews. Some (_e.g._, Z\u00f6ckler) understand these verses as\na recapitulation of the exploits of Antiochus. The whole clause is\nsurrounded by historic uncertainties.\n\n[711] The origin of the name Maccabee still remains uncertain. Some\nmake it stand for the initials of the Hebrew words, \"Who among the\ngods is like Jehovah?\" in Exod. xv. 11; or of Mattathias Kohen\n(priest), Ben-Johanan (_Biesenthal_). Others make it mean \"the\nHammerer\" (comp. Charles _Martel_). See Jost, i. 116; Prideaux, ii.\n199 (so Grotius, and Buxtorf, _De Abbreviaturis_).\n\n[712] Vulg., Aphadno. The LXX. omit it. Theodot., Apadano; Symm.,\n\"his stable.\"\n\n[713] Porphyry says that \"he pitched his tent in a place called Apedno,\nbetween the Tigris and Euphrates\"; but even if these rivers should be\ncalled seas, they have nothing to do with the Holy Mountain. Apedno\nseems to be a mere guess from the word \u05d0\u05e4\u05d3\u05df, \"palace\" or \"tent,\" in\nthis verse. See Jer. xliii. 10 (Targum). Roland, however, quotes\nProcopius (_De \u00e6dif. Justiniani_, ii. 4) as authority for a place\ncalled Apadnas, near Amida, on the Tigris. See Pusey, p. 39.\n\n[714] Jahn, \u00a7 xcv.\n\n[715] 2 Macc. ix.; Jos., _Antt._, XII. ix. 1, 2; Milman, _Hist. of\nthe Jews_, ii. 9. Appian describes his lingering and wasting illness\nby the word \u03c6\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd (_Syriaca_, 66).\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI\n\n                             _THE EPILOGUE_\n\n\nThe twelfth chapter of the Book of Daniel serves as a general\nepilogue to the Book, and is as little free from difficulties in the\ninterpretation of the details as are the other apocalyptic chapters.\n\nThe keynote, however, to their right understanding must be given\nin the words \"_At that time_,\" with which the first verse opens.\nThe words can only mean \"the time\" spoken of at the end of the last\nchapter, the days of that final effort of Antiochus against the holy\npeople which ended in his miserable death.\n\n\"At that time,\" then--_i.e._, about the year B.C. 163--the guardian\narchangel of Israel, \"Michael, the great prince which standeth for\nthe children of thy people,\" shall stand up for their deliverance.\n\nBut this deliverance should resemble many similar crises in its\ngeneral characteristics. It should not be immediate. On the\ncontrary, it should be preceded by days of unparalleled disorder\nand catastrophe--\"a time of trouble, such as never was since there\nwas a nation even to that same time.\" We may, for instance, compare\nwith this the similar prophecy of Jeremiah (xxx. 4-11): \"And these\nare the words which the Lord spake concerning Israel and concerning\nJudah. For thus saith the Lord; We have heard a voice of trembling,\nof fear, and not of peace.... Alas! for that day is great, so that\nnone is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall\nbe saved out of it. And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the\nLord, that I will burst thy bonds.... Therefore fear thou not, O\nJacob, My servant, saith the Lord; neither be dismayed, O Israel....\nFor I am with thee, saith the Lord, to save thee. For I will make a\nfull end of all the nations whither I have scattered thee, but I will\nnot make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee with judgment,\nand will in nowise leave thee unpunished.\"[716]\n\nThe general conception is so common as even to have found expression\nin proverbs,--such as, \"The night is darkest just before the dawn\";\nand, \"When the tale of bricks is doubled, Moses comes.\" Some shadow\nof similar individual and historic experiences is found also among\nthe Greeks and Romans. It lies in the expression \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2,\nand also in the lines of Horace,--\n\n            \"Nec Deus intersit nisi _dignus vindice nodus_\n             Intersit.\"\n\nWe find the same expectation in the apocryphal Book of Enoch,[717]\nand we find it reflected in the Revelation of St. John,[718] where he\ndescribes the devil as let loose and the powers of evil as gathering\nthemselves together for the great final battle of Armageddon before\nthe eternal triumph of the Lamb and of His saints. In Rabbinic\nliterature there was a fixed anticipation that the coming of the\nMessiah must inevitably be preceded by \"pangs\" or \"birth-throes,\" of\nwhich they spoke as the \u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9.[719] These views may partly have\nbeen founded on individual and national experience, but they were\ndoubtless deepened by the vision of Zechariah (xii.).\n\n\"Behold, a day of the Lord cometh, when thy spoil shall be divided in\nthe midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to\nbattle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the\nwomen ravished; and half of the people shall go forth into captivity,\nand the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then\nshall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when He\nfought in the day of battle. And His feet shall stand in that day upon\nthe Mount of Olives.... And it shall come to pass in that day, that the\nlight shall not be light, but cold and ice:[720] but it shall be one\nday that is known unto the Lord, not day and not night: but it shall\ncome to pass that at evening time there shall be light.\"[721]\n\nThe anticipation of the saintly writer in the days of the early\nMaccabean uprising, while all the visible issues were still\nuncertain, and hopes as yet unaccomplished could only be read by the\neyes of faith, were doubtless of a similar character. When he wrote\nAntiochus was already concentrating his powers to advance with the\nutmost wrath and fury against the Holy City. Humanly speaking, it\nwas certain that the holy people could oppose no adequate resistance\nto his overwhelming forces, in which he would doubtless be able to\nenlist contingents from many allied nations. What could ensue but\nimmeasurable calamity to the great majority? Michael indeed, their\nprince, should do his utmost for them; but it would not be in his\npower to avert the misery which should fall on the nation generally.\n\nNevertheless, they should not be given up to utter or to final\ndestruction. As in the days of the Assyrians the name Shear-jashub,\nwhich Isaiah gave to one of his young sons, was a sign that \"a\nremnant should be left,\" so now the seer is assured that \"thy people\nshall be delivered\"--at any rate \"every one that shall be found\nwritten in the book.\"\n\n\"Written in the book\"--for all true Israelites had ever believed that\na book of record, a book of remembrance, lies ever open before the\nthrone of God, in which are inscribed the names of God's faithful\nones; as well as that awful book in which are written the evil deeds\nof men.[722] Thus in Exodus (xxxii. 33) we read, \"Whosoever hath\nsinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book,\" which tells us\nof the records against the guilty. In Psalm lxix. 28 we read, \"Let\nthem be blotted out of the book of life, and not be written with\nthe righteous.\" That book of the righteous is specially mentioned\nby Malachi: \"Then they that feared the Lord spake one with another:\nand the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was\nwritten before him for them that feared the Lord and called upon\nHis Name.\"[723] And St. John refers to these books at the close\nof the Apocalypse: \"And I saw the dead, the great and the small,\nstanding before the throne; and books were opened: and another book\nwas opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out\nof the things which were written in the books, according to their\nworks.... And if any one was not found written in the book of life,\nhe was cast in the lake of fire.\"[724]\n\nIn the next verse the seer is told that \"many of them that sleep in\nthe dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some\nto shame and everlasting abhorrence.\"[725]\n\nIt is easy to glide with insincere confidence over the difficulties\nof this verse, but they are many.\n\nWe should naturally connect it with what goes before as a reference\nto \"that time\"; and if so, it would seem as though--perhaps with\nreminiscences of the concluding prophecy of Isaiah[726]--the writer\ncontemplated the end of all things and the final resurrection.[727]\nIf so, we have here another instance to be added to the many in\nwhich this prophetic vision of the future passed from an immediate\nhorizon to another infinitely distant. And if that be the correct\ninterpretation, this is the earliest trace in Scripture of the\ndoctrine of individual immortality. Of that doctrine there was no\nfull knowledge--there were only dim prognostications or splendid\nhopes[728]--until in the fulness of the times Christ brought life\nand immortality to light. For instance, the passage here seems to be\ndoubly limited. It does not refer to mankind in general, but only to\nmembers of the chosen people; and it is not said that all men shall\nrise again and receive according to their works, but only that \"many\"\nshall rise to receive the reward of true life,[729] while others\nshall live indeed, but only in everlasting shame.\n\nTo them that be wise--to \"the teacher,\"[730] and to those that turn\nthe many to \"righteousness\"--there is a further promise of glory. They\n\"shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and as the stars for\never and ever.\" There is here, perhaps, a reminiscence of Prov. iv. 18,\n19, which tells us that the way of the wicked is as darkness, whereas\nthe path of the just is as the shining light that shineth more and\nmore unto the perfect day. Our Lord uses a similar metaphor in his\nexplanation of the Parable of the Tares: \"Then shall the righteous\nshine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.\"[731] We find\nit once again in the last verse of the Epistle of St. James: \"Let him\nknow, that he who hath converted a sinner from the error of his way\nshall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.\"\n\nBut there is a further indication that the writer expected this\nfinal consummation to take place immediately after the troubles\nof the Antiochian assault; for he describes the angel Gabriel as\nbidding Daniel \"to seal the Book even to the time of the end.\" Now\nas it is clear that the Book was, on any hypothesis, meant for\nthe special consolation of the persecuted Jews under the cruel\nsway of the Seleucid King, and that then first could the Book be\nunderstood, the writer evidently looked for the fulfilment of his\nlast prophecies at the termination of these troubles. This meaning\nis a little obscured by the rendering, \"many _shall run to and fro_,\nand knowledge shall be increased.\" Ewald, Maurer, and Hitzig take\nthe verse, which literally implies movement hither and thither, in\nthe sense, \"many shall _peruse_ the Book.\"[732] Mr. Bevan, however,\nfrom a consideration of the Septuagint Version of the words, \"and\nknowledge shall be increased\"--for which they read, \"and the land be\nfilled with injustice\"--thinks that the original rendering would be\nrepresented by, \"many shall rush hither and thither, and many shall\nbe the calamities.\" In other words, \"the revelation must remain\nconcealed, because there is to ensue a long period of commotion and\ndistress.\"[733] If we have been convinced by the concurrence of many\nirresistible arguments that the Book of Daniel is the product of the\nepoch which it most minutely describes, we can only see in this verse\na part of the literary form which the Book necessarily assumed as\nthe vehicle for its lofty and encouraging messages.\n\nThe angel here ceases to speak, and Daniel, looking round him,\nbecomes aware of the presence of two other celestial beings, one of\nwhom stood on either bank of the river.[734] \"And one said to the man\nclothed in linen, which was above the waters of the river, How long\nto the end of these wonders?\"[735] There is a certain grandeur in the\nvagueness of description, but the speaker seems to be one of the two\nangels standing on either \"lip\" of the Tigris. \"The man clothed in\nlinen,\" who is hovering in the air above the waters of the river, is\nthe same being who in viii. 16 wears \"the appearance of a man,\" and\ncalls \"from between the banks of Ulai\" to Gabriel that he is to make\nDaniel understand the vision. He is also, doubtless, the \"one man\nclothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz,\nhis body like the beryl, his face as flashing lightning, his eyes as\nburning torches, and his voice like the deep murmur of a multitude,\"\nwho strikes such terror into Daniel and his comrades in the vision of\nchap. x. 5, 6;--and though all is left uncertain, \"the great prince\nMichael\" may perhaps be intended.\n\nThe question how long these marvels were to last, and at what period\nthe promised deliverance should be accomplished, was one which would\nnaturally have the intensest interest to those Jews who--in the\nagonies of the Antiochian persecution and at the beginning of the\n\"little help\" caused by the Maccabean uprising--read for the first time\nthe fearful yet consolatory and inspiring pages of this new apocalypse.\nThe answer is uttered with the most solemn emphasis. The Vision of the\npriest-like and gold-girded angel, as he hovers above the river-flood,\n\"held up both his hands to heaven,\" and swears by Him that liveth for\never and ever that the continuance of the affliction shall be \"for a\ntime, times, and a half.\" So Abraham, to emphasise his refusal of any\ngain from the King of Sodom, says that he has \"_lifted up his hand_\nunto the Lord, the Most High God, that he would not take from a thread\nto a shoe-latchet.\" And in Exod. vi. 8, when Jehovah says \"I did\nswear,\" the expression means literally, \"_I lifted up My hand_.\"[736]\nIt is the natural attitude of calling God to witness; and in Rev. x.\n5, 6, with a reminiscence of this passage, the angel is described as\nstanding on the sea, and lifting his right hand to heaven to swear a\nmighty oath that there should be no longer delay.\n\nThe \"time, two times, and half a time\" of course means three years\nand a half, as in vii. 25. There can be little doubt that their\ncommencement is the _terminus a quo_ which is expressly mentioned in\nver. 11: \"the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away.\" We\nhave already had occasion to see that three years, with a margin which\nseems to have been variously computed, does roughly correspond to the\ncontinuance of that total desecration of the Temple, and extinction of\nthe most characteristic rites of Judaism, which preceded the death of\nAntiochus and the triumph of the national cause.\n\nUnhappily the reading, rendering, and interpretation of the next\nclause of the angel's oath are obscure and uncertain. It is rendered\nin the R.V., \"and when they have made an end of breaking in pieces\nthe power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.\"\nAs to the exact translation many scholars differ. Von Lengerke\ntranslates it, \"and when the scattering of a part of the holy people\nshould come to an end, all this should be ended.\" The Septuagint\nVersion is wholly unintelligible. Mr. Bevan suggests an alteration of\nthe text which would imply that, \"when the power of the shatterer of\nthe holy people [_i.e._, Antiochus] should come to an end, all these\nthings should be ended.\" This no doubt would not only give a very\nclear sense, but also one which would be identical with the prophecy\nof vii. 25, that \"they [the times and the law] shall be given unto\nhis hand until a time and times and half a time.\"[737] But if we stop\nshort at the desperate and uncertain expedient of correcting the\noriginal Hebrew, we can only regard the words as implying (in the\nrendering of our A.V. and R.V.) that the persecution and suppression\nof Israel should proceed to their extremest limit, before the woe was\nended; and of this we have already been assured.[738]\n\nThe writer, in the person of Daniel, is perplexed by the angel's\noath, and yearns for further enlightenment and certitude. He makes\nan appeal to the vision with the question, \"O my lord, what shall\nbe the issue [or, latter end] of these things?\" In answer he is\nsimply bidden to go his way--_i.e._, to be at peace, and leave all\nthese events to God,[739] since the words are shut up and sealed\ntill the time of the end. In other words, the Daniel of the Persian\nCourt could not possibly have attached any sort of definite meaning\nto minutely detailed predictions affecting the existence of empires\nwhich would not so much as emerge on the horizon till centuries after\nhis death. These later visions could only be apprehended by the\ncontemporaries of the events which they shadowed forth.\n\n\"Many,\" continued the angel, \"shall purify themselves, and make\nthemselves white, and be refined; but the wicked shall do wickedly:\nand none of the wicked shall understand; the teachers shall\nunderstand.\"[740]\n\nThe verse describes the deep divisions which should be cleft among\nthe Jews by the intrigues and persecutions of Antiochus. Many would\ncling to their ancient and sacred institutions, and purified by pain,\npurged from all dross of worldliness and hypocrisy in the fires of\naffliction, like gold in the furnace, would form the new parties\nof the _Chasid\u00eem_ and the _Anav\u00eem_, \"the pious\" and \"the poor.\"\nThey would be such men as the good high priest Onias, Mattathias\nof Modin and his glorious sons, the scribe Eleazar, and the seven\ndauntless martyrs, sons of the holy woman who unflinchingly watched\ntheir agonies and encouraged them to die rather than to apostatise.\nBut the wicked would continue to be void of all understanding, and\nwould go on still in their wickedness, like Jason and Menelaus,\nthe renegade usurpers of the high-priesthood. These and the whole\nHellenising party among the Jews, for the sake of gain, plunged into\nheathen practices, made abominable offerings to gods which were no\ngods, and in order to take part in the naked contests of the Greek\ngymnasium which they had set up in Jerusalem, deliberately attempted\nto obliterate the seal of circumcision which was the covenant pledge\nof their national consecration to the Jehovah of their fathers.\n\n\"And from the time that the continual burnt offering shall be taken\naway, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be\na thousand two hundred and ninety days.\"\n\nIf we suppose the year to consist of twelve months of thirty days,\nthen (with the insertion of one intercalary month of thirty days)\ntwelve hundred and ninety days is exactly three and a half years.\nWe are, however, faced by the difficulty that the time from the\ndesecration of the Temple till its reconsecration by Judas Maccab\u00e6us\nseems to have been exactly three years;[741] and if that view be\nfounded on correct chronology, we can give no exact interpretation of\nthe very specific date here furnished.\n\nOur difficulties are increased by the next clause: \"Blessed is he\nthat waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and\nthirty days.\"\n\nAll that we can conjecture from this is that, at the close of twelve\nhundred and ninety days, by the writer's reckoning from the cessation\nof the daily burnt offering, and the erection of the heathen\nabomination which drove all faithful Jews from the Temple, up to the\ndate of some marked deliverance, would be three and a half years,\nbut that this deliverance would be less complete and beatific than\nanother and later deliverance which would not occur till forty-five\ndays later.[742]\n\nReams of conjecture and dubious history and imaginative chronology\nhave been expended upon the effort to give any interpretation of\nthese precise data which can pretend to the dignity of firm or\nscientific exegesis. Some, for instance, like Keil, regard the\nnumbers as _symbolical_, which is equivalent to the admission that\nthey have little or no bearing on literal history; others suppose\nthat they are _conjectural_, having been penned before the actual\ntermination of the Seleucid troubles. Others regard them as only\nintended to represent _round numbers_. Others again attempt to give\nthem historic accuracy by various manipulations of the dates and\nevents in and after the reign of Antiochus. Others relegate the\nentire vision to periods separated from the Maccabean age by hundreds\nof years, or even into the remotest future. And none of these\ncommentators, by their researches and combinations, have succeeded\nin establishing the smallest approach to conviction in the minds\nof those who take the other views. There can be little doubt that\nto the writer and his readers the passage pointed either to very\nconfident expectations or very well-understood realities; but for\nus the exact clue to the meaning is lost. All that can be said is\nthat we should probably understand the dates better if our knowledge\nof the history of B.C. 165-164 was more complete. We are forced to\ncontent ourselves with their general significance. It is easy to\nrecord and to multiply elaborate guesses, and to deceive ourselves\nwith the merest pretence and semblance of certainty. For reverent\nand severely honest inquiries it seems safer and wiser to study and\nprofit by the great lessons and examples clearly set before us in the\nBook of Daniel, but, as regards many of its unsolved difficulties, to\nobey the wise exhortation of the Rabbis,--\n\n            \"Learn to say, 'I do not know.'\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[716] See too Joel ii. 2.\n\n[717] Enoch xc. 16.\n\n[718] Rev. xvi. 14, xix. 19.\n\n[719] Comp. Matt. xxiv. 6, 7, 21, 22.\n\n[720] Such is the reading of the LXX., Vulgate, Peshitta, Symmachus,\netc.\n\n[721] Zech. xiv. 1-7.\n\n[722] Comp. vii. 10: \"And the books were opened.\"\n\n[723] Mal. iii. 16.\n\n[724] Rev. xx. 12-15. Compare too Phil. iv. 3: \"With Clement also,\nand the rest of my fellow-workers, whose names are in the book of\nlife.\"\n\n[725] \"Many sleepers in the land of dust\" seems to mean the dead.\nComp. Jer. li. 39; Psalm xxii. 29; 1 Thess. iv. 14; Acts vii. 60. For\n\"shame\" see Jer. xxiii. 40. The word for \"abhorrence\" only occurs\nin Isa. lxvi. 24. The allusion seems to be to the \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n(John v. 29), the \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 of Rev. xx. 14. Comp. Enoch xxii.\n\n[726] Isa. lxvi. 24.\n\n[727] It is certain that the doctrine of the Resurrection acquired\nmore clearness in the minds of the Jews at and after the period of the\nExile; nor is there anything derogatory to the workings of the Spirit\nof God which lighteth every man, in the view which supposes that they\nmay have learnt something on this subject from the Babylonians and\nAssyrians. See the testimonies of St. Peter and St. Paul as to some\ndegree of Ethnic inspiration in Acts x. 34, 35, xvii. 25-31.\n\n[728] See Ezek. xxxvii. 1-4.\n\n[729] Theodoret says that \"many\" means \"all,\" as in Rom. v. 15; but\nthere it is \"_the_ many,\" and the parallel is altogether defective.\nHofmann gets over the difficulty by rendering it, \"And in multitudes\nshall they arise.\" Many commentators explain it not of the final but of\nsome partial resurrection. Few will now be content with such autocratic\nremarks as that of Calvin: \"Multos hic ponit pro omnibus ut certum est.\"\n\n[730] Lit. \"those that justify the multitude.\" Comp. Isa. liii. 11,\nand see Dan. xi. 33-35.\n\n[731] Matt. xiii. 43; 1 Cor. xv. 41; Rev. ii. 28.\n\n[732] Comp. Zech. iv. 10. This sense cannot be rigidly established.\n\n[733] He refers to 1 Macc. i. 9, which says of the successors of\nAlexander, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b3\u1fc3.\n\n[734] Jerome guesses that they are the angels of Persia and Greece.\nThe word \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05d0\u05e8 lit. \"the canal,\" is often used of the Nile.\n\n[735] The LXX. reads \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c0\u03b1, \"and I said,\" making Daniel the\nspeaker (so too the Vulgate); but the form of the passage is so\nclosely analogous to viii. 13, as to leave no doubt that here too\n\"one saint is speaking to another saint.\"\n\n[736] Comp. Gen. xiv. 22; Deut. xxxii. 40, \"For I lift up My hand\nunto heaven, and say, I live for ever\"; Ezek. xx. 5, 6, etc.\n\n[737] Those who can rest content with such exegesis may explain this\nto imply that \"the reign of _antichrist_ will be divided into three\nperiods--the first long, the second longer, the third shortest of all,\"\njust as the seventy weeks of chap. ix. are composed of 7 \u00d7 62 \u00d7 1.\n\n[738] By way of comment see 1 Macc. v.; 2 Macc. viii.\n\n[739] \u05dc\u05b5\u05da\u05b0 is encouraging, as in ver. 13.\n\n[740] Comp. Rev. xxii. 11.\n\n[741] The small heathen altar to Zeus was built by Antiochus upon\nthe great altar of burnt offering on Kisleu 15, B.C. 168. The revolt\nof Mattathias and his seven sons began B.C. 167. Judas the Maccabee\ndefeated the Syrian generals Apollonius, Seron, and Gorgias B.C. 166,\nand Lysias at Beth-sur in B.C. 165. He cleansed and rededicated the\nTemple on Kisleu 25, B.C. 165.\n\n[742] The \"time, times, and a half.\" The 1,290 days, 1,335 days\nand the 1,150 days, and the 2,300 days of viii. 14 all agree in\nindicating three years with a shorter or longer fraction. It will be\nobserved that in each case there is a certain reticence or vagueness\nas to the _terminus ad quem_. It is interesting to note that in Rev.\nxi. 2, 3, the period of 42 months = 1,260 days = 3-1/2 years of\nmonths of 30 days with no intercalary month.\n\n\n\n\n                    APPROXIMATE CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES\n\n\n                                                  B.C.\n  Jehoiakim                                       608-597\n  Zedekiah                                        597-588\n  Jerusalem taken                                 588\n  Death of Nebuchadrezzar                         561\n  Evil-merodach                                   561\n  Neriglissar                                     559\n  Laborosoarchod                                  555\n  Nabunaid                                        555\n  Capture of Babylon                              538\n  Decree of Cyrus                                 536\n  Cambyses                                        529\n  Darius, son of Hystaspes                        521\n  Dedication of the Second Temple                 516\n  Battle of Salamis                               480\n  Ezra                                            458\n  Nehemiah                                        444\n  Nehemiah's reforms                              428\n  Malachi                                         420\n  Alexander the Great invades Persia              334\n  Battle of Granicus                              334\n  Battle of Issus                                 333\n  Battle of Arbela                                331\n  Death of Darius Codomannus                      330\n  Death of Alexander                              323\n  Ptolemy Soter captures Jerusalem                320\n  Simon the Just high priest                      310\n  Beginning of Septuagint translation             284\n  Antiochus the Great conquers Palestine      (?) 202\n\n                                           B.C.\n  Accession of Antiochus Epiphanes         176  Dan. vii. 8, 20.\n\n  Joshua (Jason), brother of Onias III.,\n    gets the priesthood by bribery, and\n    promotes Hellenism among the Jews      174  Dan. xi. 23-24, ix. 26.\n\n  First expedition of Antiochus against\n    Egypt.--Murder of Onias III            171\n\n  His second expedition                (?) 170\n\n  His plunder of the Temple and massacre\n    at Jerusalem                           170  Dan. viii. 9, 10; xi. 28.\n\n  Third expedition of Antiochus            169  Dan. xi. 29, 30.\n\n  Apollonius, the general of Antiochus,\n    advances against Jerusalem with an\n    army of 22,000.--Massacre.--The\n    abomination of desolation in the            Dan. vii. 21, 24, 25;\n    Temple.--Antiochus carries off some           viii. 11-13, 24, 25;\n    of the holy vessels (1 Macc. i. 25);          xi. 30-35, etc.\n    forbids circumcision; burns the\n    books of the Law; puts down the\n    daily sacrifice                        169-8\n\n  Desecration of the Temple.--Jews\n    compelled to pay public honour\n    to  false gods.--Faithfulness of\n    scribes and _Chasid\u00eem_.--Revolt of\n    Maccabees                              167  Dan. xi. 34, 35; xii. 3.\n\n  Jewish war of independence.--Death\n    of the priest Mattathias.--Judas\n    Maccab\u00e6us defeats Lysias               166\n\n  Battles of Beth-zur and                       Dan. vii. II, 26; viii.\n    Emmaus.--Purification of Temple               14; xi. 45, etc.\n    (Kisleu 25)                            165\n\n  Death of Antiochus Epiphanes             163\n\n  Judas Maccab\u00e6us dies in battle at\n    Eleasa                                 161\n\n                   GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE LAGID\u00c6,\n                        PTOLEMIES, AND SELEUCID\u00c6\n\n       Seleucus Nicator,\n        B.C. 312-280.                        Ptolemy Soter (Dan. xi. 5).\n            |                                     |\n       Antiochus I. (Soter),                Ptolemy Philadelphus.\n       B.C. 280.                                  |\n            |                                     |\n     +------+----------------+        +-----------+------+\n     |                       |        |                  |\n  Laodice==Antiochus II.  (Theos)==Berenice.         Ptolemy Euergetes,\n          | B.C. 260-246.         |                  B.C. 285-247\n          |                       |                  (Dan. xi. 7,8).\n          |                 An infant, murdered          |\n    +-----+-----------+        by Laodice.               |\n    |                 |                              Ptolemy Philopator,\n  Seleucus II.     Antiochus.                        B.C. 222-205\n  (Kallinikos),                                      (Dan. xi. 10-12).\n  d. B.C. 226.                                           |\n      |                                                  |\n   +--+------------------+                               |\n   |                     |                               |\n  Seleucus III.     Antiochus III. (\"the Great\"),        |\n  (Keraunos).       B.C. 224 (Dan. xi. 10-12, 14).       |\n                         |                               |\n     +-------------------+------------------+            |\n     |                   |                  |            |\n  Seleucus         Antiochus IV.        Cleopatra==Ptolemy Epiphanes,\n  Philopator.   (Epiphanes), B.C. 175.           |  B.C. 205-181\n     |                   |                       |  (Dan. xi. 14).\n     |                   |                +------+--------------+\n  Demetrius.         Antiochus V.,        |                     |\n                     B.C. 164.        Ptolemy Philometor,    Ptolemy\n                                       B.C. 181-146        Euergetes II.\n                                      (Dan. xi. 25-30).\n\nFor a fuller list and further identifications see Driver, pp. 461,\n462, and _supra_. For the genealogical table see Mr. Deane (Bishop\nEllicott's _Commentary_, v. 402).\n\n\n\n\n                         THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n                           EDITED BY THE REV.\n\n                  =W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.=,\n\n                    Editor of \"The Expositor,\" etc.\n\n  _In large crown 8vo, cloth. Price to Subscribers in Advance_, =28s.=\n                  _Separate Vols._, =7s. 6d.= _each_.\n\n\n                          =THE RECORD= says:--\n\n\"_Few series of volumes gives us so much pleasure to review as the\n'Expositor's Bible.' We never open a volume without expecting to\nfind in it much that is inspiriting and much that is suggestive, and\nwe are never disappointed. We have no hesitation in advising any\nClergyman who is thinking of expounding a book of Scripture to his\ncongregation to procure, as one of his most valuable aids, the right\nvolume of the 'Expositor's Bible._'\"\n\n\n                           ==First Series.==\n\n   _Subscription Price_, =24s.= _Separate Volumes_, =7s. 6d.= _each_.\n\n  =The Gospel of St. Mark=\n        By the =Very Rev. G. A. CHADWICK, D.D.=, Dean of Armagh.\n\n  =The Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon=\n        By the =Rev. ALEXANDER MACLAREN, D.D.=\n\n  =The Book of Genesis=\n        By the =Rev. Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.=\n\n  =The First Book of Samuel=\n        By the =Rev. Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.=\n\n  =The Second Book of Samuel=\n        By the =Rev. Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.=\n\n  =The Epistle to the Hebrews=\n        By the =Rev. Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D.=, Author of\n        \"A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians.\"\n\n  =All the Sets may be had at the Subscription Price, but the Volumes\n    of the different Series are not assorted on Subscription Terms.=\n\n\n\n\n                         THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n                           ==Second Series.==\n\n   _Subscription Price_, =24s.= _Separate Volumes_, =7s. 6d.= _each_.\n\n\n  =The Epistle to the Galatians=\n       By the =Rev. Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.=, Headingley College, Leeds.\n\n\"In this volume we have the mature results of broad and accurate\nscholarship, exegetical tact, and a firm grasp of the great principles\nunderlying the Gospel of Paul presented in a form so lucid and\nattractive that every thoughtful reader can enjoy it.\"--PROFESSOR BEET.\n\n  =The Book of Isaiah=\n        =Chapters I.-XXXIX.=\n        By the =Rev. Prof. G. ADAM SMITH, M.A., D.D.=\n\n\"This is a very attractive book. Mr. George Adam Smith has evidently\nsuch a mastery of the scholarship of his subject that it would be a\nsheer impertinence for most scholars, even though tolerable Hebraists,\nto criticise his translations; and certainly it is not the intention of\nthe present reviewer to attempt anything of the kind, to do which he is\nabsolutely incompetent. All we desire is to let English readers know\nhow very lucid, impressive--and, indeed, how vivid--a study of Isaiah\nis within their reach; the fault of the book, if it has a fault, being\nrather that it finds too many points of connection between Isaiah and\nour modern world, than that it finds too few. In other words, no one\ncan say that the book is not full of life.\"--_Spectator._\n\n  =The Pastoral Epistles=\n        By the =Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D.=, Master of University\n        College, Durham.\n\n\"An admirable sample of what popular theology ought to\nbe.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n\"The treatment is throughout scholarlike, lucid,\nthoughtful.\"--_Guardian._\n\n  =The First Epistle to the Corinthians=\n        By the =Rev. Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.=\n\n\"A clear, close, unaffected, unostentatious exposition, not verse by\nverse, but thought after thought, of this most interesting perhaps,\nand certainly most various, of all the Apostle's writings.\"--_London\nQuarterly Review._\n\n  =The Epistles of St. John=\n        By the =Right Rev. W. ALEXANDER, D.D.=, Lord Bishop\n        of Derry and Raphoe.\n\n\"These commentaries are explicitly intended to help the preacher,\nand in Dr. Alexander's 'Discourses' they will find material ready\nshaped to their hand--not facts only, but imagery, references, and\nallusions, none of them cheap or commonplace, and some of them\nfelicitous in a high degree.\"--_Guardian._\n\n  =The Revelation of St. John=\n        By the =Rev. Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.=, of the University\n        of Aberdeen.\n\n\"Lucid, scholarly.\"--_Academy._\n\n\"The style is admirably lucid, expressive, and withal stately. The\ntask of the reader could not possibly be easier, and in the case of\nsuch an abstruse theme the result is no small feat of intellectual\nand literary ingenuity.\"--_Aberdeen Free Press._\n\n\n\n\n\n                         THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n                           ==Third Series.==\n\n   _Subscription Price_, =24s.= _Separate Volumes_, =7s. 6d.= _each_.\n\n\n  =Judges and Ruth=\n        By the =Rev. R. A. WATSON, D.D.=\n\n\"This volume deals chiefly with a book considered by some one of the\nmost difficult of expositions from a Christian point of view. While\nfeeling this to be the case, the writer is able to deduce valuable\ninstruction from the history by the only legitimate mode, that of\nremembering that the character and laws of God are essentially\nunchangeable, though the amount of their revelation must vary with\nthe capacity of those who receive it.... The moralisings on the Book\nof Ruth are also most excellent, and just what are adapted to present\ncircumstances.\"--_Spectator._\n\n  =The Prophecies of Jeremiah=\n        =With a Sketch of his Life and Times.=\n        By the =Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.=, Chaplain of Lincoln's Inn.\n\n\"Mr. Ball brings competent knowledge to his task.... A useful running\ncommentary.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n\"It consists of an interesting and sympathetic delineation of the\nprophet's life and character, of a new translation, and of expository\nremarks, which are partly critical and partly homiletic. The critical\nportion will be prized most, as it exhibits deep learning, breadth\nof view, and clear insight into the prophet's meaning.\"--_Manchester\nExaminer._\n\n  =The Book of Exodus=\n        By the =Very Rev. G. A. CHADWICK, D.D.=, Dean of Armagh.\n\n\"Marked by sound exegesis, common sense, and a devotional\nspirit.\"--_Record._\n\n\"Every part of the book is replete with instruction and interest, and\na unity of thought and purpose pervades it all.\"--_Glasgow Herald._\n\n  =The Gospel of St. Matthew=\n        By the =Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.=, Author of \"The\n        Ages before Moses,\" etc.\n\n\"A careful exposition in which one important part is not slightly\ndealt with while disproportionate space is given to another, but by\nstudied economy of labour and space due care and labour are given to\nevery part. The exposition is sober, reverent, and systematic; it is\nalso enlightened and well informed.\"--_London Quarterly Review._\n\n  =The Gospel of St. Luke=\n        By the =Rev. HENRY BURTON, M.A.=\n\n\"Full of vivid illustration and fresh, bright exposition.\"--_Record._\n\n\"In the unfolding of truth Mr. Burton writes as a poet. There is glow\nand colour and melody in his descriptions. Often there are passages\nof great beauty.\"--_Methodist Recorder._\n\n  =The Book of Isaiah=\n        =Chapters XL. to LXVI.=\n        By the =Rev. Prof. G. ADAM SMITH, M.A., D.D.=\n\n\"A work of no ordinary merit; indeed, it is but rare that such\nexegetical power and mature scholarship are united with an ease of\nstyle and a fertility of modern illustration that leave but little to\ndesire.\"--_Speaker._\n\n\n\n\n\n                         THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n                           ==Fourth Series.==\n\n   _Subscription Price_, =24s.= _Separate Volumes_, =7s. 6d.= _each_.\n\n\n  =The Gospel of St. John. Vol. I.=\n        By the =Rev. Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.=\n\n\"Dr. Dods' exposition, besides being characterised by all the literary\ngrace by which his previous works are distinguished, is also thoroughly\nevangelical in tone, without, however, being at all narrow; while the\narguments which this portion of Scripture so powerfully suggests in\nproof of the divinity of Christ are handled in such a way as will carry\nthem home to all who accept the narrative as authentic.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n  =The Acts of the Apostles. Vol. I.=\n        By the =Rev. Prof. G. T. STOKES, D.D.=\n\n\"One of the most valuable contributions to the history of the\nPrimitive Church that have appeared within recent years.\"--_Dundee\nAdvertiser._\n\n  =The Book of Leviticus=\n        By the =Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.=\n\n\"The relation of law and gospel is grandly exhibited, and a difficult\nportion of Holy Writ explained in detail and with power.\"--_Christian._\n\n\"He has certainly succeeded in investing with fresh interest this old\nbook of laws.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n  =The Book of Proverbs=\n        By the =Rev. R. F. HORTON, M.A., D.D.=\n\n\"Ably and freshly written.\"--_Church Times._\n\n\"A book which may be read by all with pleasure and profit, and which,\nby ministers of all orders, may be taken as a model of one kind of\nexpository teaching.\"--_Christian World._\n\n\"The expositor has done his work in a most masterly\nfashion.\"--_Glasgow Herald._\n\n  =The Epistles of St. James and St. Jude=\n        By the =Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.=, Master of University\n        College, Durham.\n\n\"It is even a better piece of work than his former volume on the\nPastoral Epistles. It contains everything that the student can\ndesire by way of introduction to the two Epistles, while for those\nwho read with an eye to the manufacture of sermons, or for their own\nedification, the doctrinal and moral lessons are developed in a style\nredolent of books, yet singularly easy and unaffected. Points of\ninterest abound.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n\"A very able and interesting exposition.... An excellent example of\nScriptural exegesis.\"--_Academy._\n\n  =The Book of Ecclesiastes=\n        =With a New Translation.=\n        By the =Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.=\n\n\"The most luminous, original, and practical exposition of\nEcclesiastes which is within the reach of ordinary English\nreaders.\"--_Speaker._\n\n\"Dr. Cox's work is likely to count as one of the most interesting\nof the many interesting studies of which Ecclesiastes has been the\nbasis.\"--_Guardian._\n\n\n\n\n\n                         THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n                           ==Fifth Series.==\n\n   _Subscription Price_, =24s.= _Separate Volumes_, =7s. 6d.= _each_.\n\n\n  =The Epistles to the Thessalonians=\n        By the =Rev. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.=\n\n\"As an expositor we are able to say that Mr. Denney seems to have\nentered very fully into the spirit of the Apostle Paul, and to have\nsucceeded in expressing very clearly, and impressing very forcibly, the\ngeneral meaning of the Apostle's words.... It is a very ably written\nwork, and one which is well calculated to make the Apostle's teaching\nin these two epistles more intelligible and more telling.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n  =The Book of Job=\n        By the =Rev. R. S. WATSON, D.D.=, Author of \"Gospels\n        of Yesterday,\" etc.\n\n\"Dr. Watson does not fall behind his predecessors in doing justice to\nthis magnificent effort of Hebrew genius or inspiration. The opening\nscene on earth and the opening scene in heaven are brought before us\nwith graphic power, and the problem raised by the situation of Job\nby the unmerited suffering of the good man stated and discussed with\nmuch force and philosophical insight. Dr. Watson has written with\nconspicuous ability and a thorough mastery of his subject.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n  =The Gospel of St. John. Vol. II.=\n        By =Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.=\n\n\"Dr. Dods appears to us always to write with clearness and\nvigour.... He has the gift of lucid expression, and by means of apt\nillustrations he avoids the cardinal sin of dryness, so that the\ninterest even of the general reader will not flag as he smoothly\nglides through these chapters.\"--_Guardian._\n\n  =The Epistle to the Ephesians=\n        By the =Rev. Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.=\n\n\"Every page shows that he has made a minute and careful examination\nof the text, while in every chapter there are inferences drawn and\nsuggestions thrown out which will find their way into many sermons.\nThey who know this Epistle best will be the first to acknowledge the\nvalue of Prof. Findlay's exposition.\"--_Expositor._\n\n  =The Acts of the Apostles. Vol. II.=\n        By the =Rev. Prof. G. T. STOKES, D.D.=\n\n\"The second volume is as readable as the first, full of learning\nwithout a spice of pedantry.... The volume is highly to be commended\nfor knowledge, sobriety, and manly piety.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n  =The Psalms. Vol. I.=\n        By the =Rev. ALEXANDER MACLAREN, D.D.=\n\n\"Dr. Maclaren has evidently mastered his subject with the aid of the\nbest authorities, and has put the results of his studies before his\nreaders in a most attractive form; and if we add that his commentary\nreally helps to the better understanding of the Psalms, that, far\nfrom degrading, it vivifies and illuminates these sublime stories,\nand that it is written in a charming style, very seldom falling below\nthe dignity of the subject, we believe we only give it the praise\nwhich is its due.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n\n\n\n\n                         THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n                           ==Sixth Series.==\n\n   _Subscription Price_, =24s.= _Separate Volumes_, =7s. 6d.= _each_.\n\n\n  =The Epistle to the Philippians=\n        By the =Rev. Principal RAINY, D.D.=\n\n\"A piece of good and thorough work, the work of a sound and well-read\nexpositor, and especially of an orthodox Scotch divine.\"--_London\nQuarterly Review._\n\n  =The First Book of Kings=\n        By the =Venerable F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S.=, Archdeacon\n        of Westminster.\n\n\"Dr. Farrar brings his versatile literary powers to bear upon\nthese majestic and imposing scenes, with all his gifts of poetic\ndescription, his wealth of quotations, and his aptitude for\npicturesque comparisons.\"--_Guardian._\n\n  =Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther=\n        By the =Rev. Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.=\n\n\"Mr. Adeney has evidently grasped the whole story with clearness and\nforce: his portraits are lifelike; he has all the instinct of the\nexpositor in high development. It is no small triumph to have done so\nwell with one of the least pictorial and fascinating of Old Testament\nhistories.\"--_Independent._\n\n  =The Book of Joshua=\n        By the =Rev. Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.=\n\n\"We have no hesitation in saying that for every-day working purposes\nexpositors of the Book of Joshua will find this volume more helpful\nthan many more critical and modernised works.... His expositions are\nusually fresh and interesting, and there is an eye for the practical\nin all he writes.\"--_Glasgow Herald._\n\n  =The Psalms. Vol. II.=\n        By the =Rev. ALEXANDER MACLAREN, D.D.=\n\n\"The volume is as attractive as the first, and shows throughout the\nsame high qualities of penetration and spiritual sympathy. Its pages\ngive abundant evidence of care, critical study, and acquaintance with\nthe best that our most competent scholars have contributed to the\nexposition of the Psalms.\"--_Critical Review._\n\n  =The Epistles of Peter=\n        By the =Rev. Prof. LUMBY, D.D., Cambridge.=\n\n\"A sound and finely practical commentary.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n\"We have been impressed by the carefulness, fulness, and almost\nminuteness of the expositions which Dr. Lumby gives in this\nvolume.\"--_Literary World._\n\n\u2042 =_For List of Volumes in the 7th and the concluding (8th) Series\nsee back of title._=\n\n           LONDON: HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\n\nObvious punctuation and spelling errors have been fixed throughout.\n\nInconsistent hyphenation is as in the original.","title":"The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Daniel","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":99260}