>
tibrar^ of Che t:heolo0ical ^eminarjp
PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY
•d^D'
'Vut-'V-
THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE
, EDITED BY THE REV.
W, ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D,
Editor of "The Expositor"
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
F. VV. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S.
NEW YORK
A. C. ARMSTRONG AND SON
51 EAST TENTH STREET
1895
THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.
Croum Svo, clothy price $1.50 each vol._
KiRST Series, 1887-8.
F:mi Series, 1891-2.
Colossians,
The P.salms.
By A. Maclarkn, D.D.
By A. Maclarkn, D.D. Vol. I.
St. Mark.
1 and 2 Thessalonians.
By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.
By Jamf.s Dknnrv, D.D.
Genesis.
The Book of Job.
By Prof. Marcus Dods, D.D.
By R. A. Watson, M.A., D.D.
1 Samuel.
Ephesians.
By Prof. W. G. Blaikif, D.D.
By Prof. G. G. Findlay, B.A.
2 Samuel,
The Gospel of St. John.
Ey the same Author.
By Prof. M. Dods, D.D. Vol.11.
Hebrews.
The Acts of the Apostles.
By Principal T.C. Edwards.D.D.
By Prof. Stokbs, D.D. Vol. II.
Second Series, 1888-9.
Sixth Series, 1892-3.
Galatians.
1 Kings.
By Prof. G. G. Findlay, B.A.
By Ven. Archdeacon Farrar.
The Pastoral Epistles.
By Rev. A. Plummer, D.D.
Philippians.
By Principal Rainy, D.D.
Isaiah i. — xxxix.
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.
By Prof. G. A. Smith, D.D.
By Prof W. F. Adkney, M.A.
Vol. 1.
Joshua,
The Book of Revelation.
By Prof. W. G. Blaikie, D.D.
By Prof. W. Milligan, D.D.
The Psalms.
1 Corinthians.
By A. Maclarkn, D.D. Vol. II.
By Prof. Marcus Dods, D.D.
The Epistles of St. Peter.
The Epistles of St. John.
By Prof Rawson Lumbv, D.D.
By Rt. Rev.W. Alkxandkr.D.D.
Seventh Series, 1893-4.
Third Series, 1889-90.
2 Kings.
Judges and Ruth.
By Ven. Archdeacon Farrar.
By R. A. Watson, M.A., D.D.
Romans.
Jeremiah.
By H. C. G. MouLE, M.A.
By Rev. C. J. Ball, M.A.
The Books of Chronicles.
Isaiah xi,.— lxvi.
By Prof. W. H. Bennett, M.A.
By Prof. G. A. Smith, D.D.
2 Corinthians.
Vol. II.
By James Dennby, D.D.
St. Matthew.
Numbers.
By Rev. J. Mo.vro Gibson, D.D.
By R. A. Watson, M.A., D.D.
Exodus,
The Psalms.
By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.
By A. Maclarkn, D.D. Vol. III.
St. Luke.
By Rev. H. Burton, M.A.
eighth series, 1895-6.
Daniel.
Fourth Series, 1890-1.
By Ven. Archdeacon Farrar.
Ecclesiastes.
The Book of Jeremiah.
By Rev. Samuel Cox, D.D.
By Prof. W. H. Bennett, M.A.
St. James and St. Jude.
Deuteronomy,
By Rev. A. Plu.mmkr, D.D.
By Prof. Andrew Hartek, B.D.
Proverbs.
The Song of Solomon and
By Rev. R. F. IioRTON, D.D.
Lamentations.
Leviticus.
By Prof. W. F. Adenev, M.A.
By Rev. S. H. Kellogg, D.D.
Ezekiel.
The Gospel of St. John.
By Prof. John Skinner, M.A.
By Pro). M. Dods, D.D. Vol. I.
The Minor Prophets.
The Acts of the Apostles.
By Prof. G. A. Smith, D.D.
By Prof. Stokes, D.D. Vol. I.
Two Vols.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S.
LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE J ARCHDEACON OF
WESTMINSTER
NEW YORK
A. C. ARMSTRONG AND SON
51 EAST TENTH STREET
1895
CONTENTS
PART I
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I
THE HISTORIC EXISTENCE OF THE PROPHET DANIEL
PAGE
3
CHAPTER II
GENERAL SURVEY OF THE BOOK.
• 13
I. THE LANGUAGE .....
• 13
2, UNITY ......
. 24
3. GENERAL TONE .....
. 27
4. STYLE ......
. 29
5. STANDPOINT OF ITS AUTHOR
• 31
6. MORAL ELEMENT .....
• 34
CHAPTER III
PECULIARITIES OF THE HISTORICAL SECTION
39
CHAPTER IV
GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK
63
CONTENTS
CHAPTER V
PAGE
THE THEOLOGY OF THE BOOK 6^
CHAPTER VI
PECULIARITIES OF THE APOCALYPTIC AND PROPHETIC
SECTION OF THE BOOK 7 1
CHAPTER VII
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 78
CHAPTER VIII
EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE GENUINENESS UNCERTAIN
AND INADEQUATE ...... 88
CHAPTER IX
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE AND RECEPTION INTO THE
CANON 98
CHAPTER X
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION II3
PART II
COMMENTARY. ON THE HISTORIC SECTION
CHAPTER I
THE PRELUDE 1 23
CHAPTER II
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES . . . I4I
CONTENTS
CHAPTER III
PAGE
THE IDOL OF GOLD, AND THE FAITHFUL THREE . 167
CHAPTER IV
THE BABYLONIAN CEDAR, AND THE STRICKEN DESPOT 1 84
CHAPTER V
THE FIERY INSCRIPTION 203
CHAPTER VI
STOPPING THE MOUTHS OF LIONS . . . . 2l8
PART III
THE PROPHETIC SECTION OF THE BOOK
CHAPTER I
VISION OF THE FOUR WILD BEASTS .... 233
CHAPTER II
THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT 252
CHAPTER III
THE SEVENTY WEEKS ....... 268
CHAPTER IV
INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCLUDING VISION . . 292
CONTENTS
CHAPTER V
PAGE
AN ENIGMATIC PROPHECY PASSING INTO DETAILS OF
THE REIGN OF ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES . . 299
CHAPTER VI
THE EPILOGUE 319
APPENDIX
APPROXIMATE CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES . . . 333
GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE LAGID^, PTOLEMIES,
AND SELEUCID^ 334
AUTHORITIES CONSULTED
COMMENTARIES AND TREATISES
The chief Rabbinic Commentaries were those of Rashi (f 1 105) ;
Abn Ezra (f 1 167) ; Kimchi (t 1240) ; Abrabanel (f 1507).'
The chief Patristic Commentary is that by St. Jerome. Frag-
ments are preserved of other Commentaries by Origen, Hippo-
lytus, Ephraem Syrus, Julius Africanus, Theodoret, Athanasius,
Basil, Eusebius, Polychronius, etc. (Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll., i.).
The Scholastic Commentary attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas
is spurious.
The chief Commentaries of the Reformation period are those
by:-
Luther, Auslegung d. Proph. Dan., 1530-46 {Opp. Germ., vi.,
ed. Walch).
CEcolampadius, In Dan. libri duo. Basle, 1530.
Melancthon, Com7n. in Dan. Wittenburg, 1543.
Calvin, Prcelect. in Dan. Geneva, 1 563.
Modern Commentaries are numerous ; among them we may
mention those by : —
Newton, Observations upon the Prophecies. London, 1733.
Bertholdt, Daniel. Erlangen, 1806-8.
Rosenmiiller, Scholia. 1832,
Havernick. 1832 and 1838.
Hengstenberg. 1831.
There are Commentaries by Von Lengerke, 1835 ; Maurer, 1838 ;
Hitzig, 1850; Evvald, 1867 ; Kliefoth, 1868; Keil, 1869; Kranich-
feld, 1868; Kamphausen, 1868; Meinhold {^Kurzgefasster Kom-
mentar), 1889 ; Auberlen, 1857 ; Archdeacon Rose and Prof.
' The Commentary which passes as that of Saadia the Gaon is said
to be spurious. His genuine Commentary only exists in manuscript.
ix
AUTHORITIES CONSULTED
J. M. Fuller {Speaker's Commentary), 1876; Rev, H. J. Deane
(Rishop EUicott's Commentary), 1884; Zockler (Lange's ^//^^Z-
iverk), 1889; A. A. Bevan {Catnbridge), 1893; Meinhold, Bei-
triige, 1888.
The latest Commentar)' which has appeared is that by Haupt-
pastor Behrmann, in tlie I landkonwientar z. Alten Testament.
Gottingen, 1894.
Discussions in the various Introductions {Einleitungen, etc.) by
Bleek, De Wette, Keil, Stiihelin, Reuss, Comely, Dr. S. Davidson,
Kleinert, Cornill, Konig, etc.
LIVES OF DANIEL
Pseudo-Epiphanius, Opera, ii. 243.
H. J. Deane, Da?iiel QAen of the Bible). 1892.
THERE ARE ARTICLES ON DANIEL IN
Winer's Realworterbuch, Second Edition.
Delitzsch, in Herzog's Real-Eticyclopadie.
Graf, in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon, \. 564.
Bishop Westcott, in Dr. W. Smith's Bible Dictionary, New
Edition. 1893.
Hamburger, Real-Encyclopddie, ii., s.v. " Geheimlehre," p. 265 ;
s.vv. " Daniel," pp. 223-225 ; and Hciliges Schriftthio7i.
TREATISES
Russel Martineau, Theological Review. 1865.
Prof. Margoliouth, The Expositor. April 1890.
Prof. J. M. Fuller, The Expositor, Third Series, vols, i., ii.
T. K. Cheyne, EncyclopoBdia Britannica, vi. 803.
Prof. Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Momiments. 1 894.
Prof. S. R. Driver, hitroduction to the Literature of the Old
Testa77icnt, pp. 458-483. 1891.
Prof. S. Leathes, in Book by Book, pp. 241-251.
C. von Orelli, Alttestamentliche Weissagnng, p. 454. Wien,
1882.
Meinhold, Die Geschichtlichen Hagiographen (Strack and
Zockler, Kurs^gefasstcr A'oninietitar, 1889).
Meinhold, Erkldnmg dcs Bvchcs Daniels. 1889.
. / i 'TliORlTlES CONSULTED
TREATISES OR DISCUSSIONS BY
Dr. Piisey, Daniel the Prophet. 1 864.
T. R. Birks, The Later Visions of Daniel. 1 846.
Ellicott, HorcE ApocalypticcE. 1844.
Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visiofis 0/ Daniel. 185:
Hilgenfeld, Die Propheten Ezra u. Daniel. 1863.
Baxmann, Sticd. i(. Krit., iii. 489 ff. 1863.
Desprez, Daniel. 1865.
Hofmann, IVeissagung und ErJ~i(llung, i. 276-316.
Kuenen, Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, E. Tr. 1877.
Ewald, Die Propheten dcs Allen Bundes, iii, 298. 1S68.
Hilgenfeld, Die jiidische ApoJcalyptic. 1857.
Lenormant, La Divination chez les Chaldeans. 1875.
Fabre d'Envieu, Le livre dit Prophete Daniel. 1888,
Hebbelyuck, De auctoritate libr. Danielis. 1887.
Kohler, Bibl. Geschichte. 1893.
INSCRIPTIONS AND MONUMENTS
Babylonian, Persian, and Median inscriptions bearing on the
Book of Daniel are given by : —
Schrader, Keilinschriften und d. A. T., E. Tr., 1885-88;
and in Records of the Past. See too Corpus Inscriptionuni
Semiticaru7)i.
Sayce, The Higher Ci'iticism, pp. 497-537.
These inscriptions have been referred to also by Cornill,
Nestle, Noldeke, Lagarde, etc.
HISTORIES AND OTHER BOOKS
Sketches and fragments of many ancient historians : —
Josephus, Antiqtdtates Judaiccs, II. x., xi., xii.
The Books of Maccabees.
Prideaux, Connection of the Old and New Testame7its, ed.
Oxford. 1828.
Evvald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel. 1843-50.
Gratz, Gesch. derjuden, Second Edition. 1863.
Jest, Gesch. d. Judenthums und seinen Sekten, i. 90-116.
Leipzig, 1857.
AUTHORITIES CONSULTED
Herzfeld, Gcsch. des Volkes Israel, ii. 416. 1863.
Van Oort, Bible for Young People, E. Tr. 1877.
Kittel, Gesch. d. Hebraer, ii. 1892.
Schiirer, Gesch. d. jildischen Volkes. Leipzig, 1890.
Jahn, Hebrew Conmionwealth, E. Tr. 1828.
Droysen, Gesch. d. Hellenisvms, ii. 211.
E. Meyer, Gesch. d. Altertlumts, i.
SPECIAL TREATISES
Delitzsch, Messianische Weissagatige^t. Leipzig, 1890.
Riehm, Die Messianische IVeissagung. Gotha, 1875.
Kiiabenbauer, Conwtent in Daniel, prophet., Lame7it., et
Baruch. 1891.
Kuenen, Religion of Israel, E. Tr. 1874.
Bludau, De Alex, interpe. Daiiielis indole. 1 891,
Noldeke, D. Alitest. Literatur. 1868.
Fraidl, Exegesc d. 70 VVochen Daniels. 1883.
Menken, Die Monarchienbild. 1887.
Kamphausen, Das Buck Daniel ifi die neuere Geschichts-
forschu7ig. Leipzig, 1893.
Lennep, De Zeventig Jaarweken van Daniel. Utrecht, 1888.
Dr. M. Joel, Notizen zimi Biiche Daniel. Breslau, 1873.
Derenbourg, Les Mots grecs dans le Livre biblique de Daniel.
Melanges Graux, 1888.
Cornill, Die Sicbzig Jahrwochen Daniels. 1889.
Wolf, Die Siebzig Wochen Daniels. 1859.
Sanday, hispiration (Bampton Lectures). 1894.
S&yce, Hibbert Lectures. 1887.
Roszmann, Die Makkabeische Erhebung.
J. F. Hoffmann, Antiochus IV. {Epipha7ies). 1873.
speaker's Commentary on Tobit, i, 2 Maccabees, etc. 1888.
PART I
INTROD UCTION
'E7W i).kv oTiv Tcepl rovTUV cos edpof kcll dviyviov, ovruis iypaxpa' el
8^ Tii fiWws do^di^eiv jSofXTjo'erat Trepl avrwp dviyK\7)Tov ix^Toj ttjv
iT€poyvufj.oa6pr)t>. — Josephus, Anit., X. ii. 7.
CHAPTER I
THE HISTORIC EXISTENCE OF THE PROPHET DANIEL
" Trothe is the hiest thinge a man may kepe." — Chaucer.
WE propose in the following pages to examine
the Book of the Prophet Daniel by the same
general methods \Yhich have been adopted in other
volumes of the Expositor's Bible. It may well happen
that the conclusions adopted as regards its origin and
its place in the Sacred Volume will not command the
assent of all our readers. On the other hand, we may
feel a reasonable confidence that, even if some are
unable to accept the views at which we have arrived,
and which we have here endeavoured to present with
fairness, they will still read them with interest, as
opinions vv^hich have been calmly and conscientiously
formed, and to which the writer has been led by strong
conviction.
All Christians will acknowledge the sacred and
imperious duty of sacrificing every other consideration
to the unbiassed acceptance of that which we regard as
truth. Further than this our readers will find much to
elucidate the Book of Daniel chapter by chapter, apart
from any questions which affect its authorship or age.
But I should like to say on the threshold that,
though I am compelled to regard the Book of Daniel
as a work which, in its present form, first saw the
light in the da3^s of Antiochus Epiphanes, and though
1 believe that its six magnificent opening chapters
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
were never meant to be regarded in any other light
than that of moral and religious Haggadolh, yet no
words of mine can exaggerate the value which I attach
to this part of our Canonical Scriptures. The Book,
as we shall see, has exercised a powerful influence
over Christian conduct and Christian thought. Its
right to a place in the Canon is undisputed and in-
disputable, and there is scarcely a single book of the
Old Testament which can be made more richly " pro-
fitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may
be complete, completely furnished unto every good
work." Such religious lessons are eminently suitable
for the aims of the Expositor's Bible. They are not
in the slightest degree impaired by those results of
archaeological discovery and " criticism " which are
now almost universally accepted by the scholars of
the Continent, and by many of our chief English critics.
Finally unfavourable to the authenticity, they are yet
in no way derogatory to the preciousness of this Old
Testament Apocalypse.
The first question which we must consider is, " What
is known about the Prophet Daniel ? "
I. If we accept as historical the particulars narrated
of him in this Book, it is clear that few Jews have ever
risen to so splendid an eminence. Under four power-
ful kings and conquerors, of three different nationalities
and dynasties, he held a position of high authority
among the haughtiest aristocracies of the ancient world.
At a very early age he was not only a satrap, but the
Prince and Prime Minister over all the satraps in
Babylonia and Persia ; not only a Magian, but the
Head Magian, and Chief Governor over all the wise men
THE HISTORIC EXISTENCE OE THE PROPHET S
of Babylon. Not even Joseph, as the chief ruler over
all the house of Pharaoh, had anything like the extensive
sway exercised by the Daniel of this Book. He was
placed by Nebuchadrezzar " over the whole province
of Babylon " ; ' under Darius he was President of the
Board of Three to " whom all the satraps " sent their
accounts;"'^ and he was continued in office and prosperity
under Cyrus the Persian.^
II. It is natural, then, that we should turn to the
monuments and inscriptions of the Babylonian, Persian,
and Median Empires to see if any mention can be
found of so prominent a ruler. But hitherto neither
has his name been discovered, nor the faintest trace
of his existence.
III. If we next search other non-Biblical sources
of information, we find much respecting him in the
Apocrypha — "The Song of the Three Children," "The
Story of Susanna," and " Bel and the Dragon." But
these additions to the Canonical Books are avowedly
valueless for any historic purpose. They are romances,
in which the vehicle of fiction is used, in a manner
which at all times was popular in Jewish literature,
to teach lessons of faith and conduct by the example
of eminent sages or saints.* The few other fictitious
' Dan. ii. 48.
" Dan. V. 29, vi. 2.
^ Dan. vi. 28. There is a Daniel of the sons of Ithamar in Ezra viii. 2,
and among those who sealed the covenant in Neh. x. 6.
' For a full account of the Agada (also called Agadiha and Haggada),
I must refer the reader to Hamburger's Real-Encyklopiidie fur Bibel
tiiid Talmud, ii. 19-27, 921-934. The first two forms of the words are
Aramaic ; the third was a Hebrew form in use among the Jews in
Babj-Ionia. The word is derived from "133^ "to say" or "explain."
Halacha was the rule of religious praxis, a sort of Directorium
Judaicum : Haggada was the result of free religious reflection. See
further Strack, Einl. in den Thalnmd, w. 122.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
fragments preserved by Fabricius have not the smallest
importance.^ Josephus, beyond mentioning that Daniel
and his three companions were of the family of King
Zedekiah,- adds nothing appreciable to our information.
He narrates the story of the Book, and in doing so
adopts a somewhat apologetic tone, as though he
specially declined to vouch for its historic exactness.
For he says : " Let no one blame me for writing down
everything of this nature, as I find it in our ancient
books : for as to that matter, I have plainly assured
those that think me defective in any such point, or
complain of my management, and have told them, in
the beginning of this history, that I intended to do
no more than to translate the Hebrew books into the
Greek language, and promised them to explain these
facts, without adding an3^thing to them of my own, or
taking anything away from them."^
IV. In the Talmud, again, we find nothing historical.
Daniel is always mentioned as a champion against
idolatry, and his wisdom is so highly esteemed, that,
" if all the wise men of the heathen," we are told, " were
on one side, and Daniel on the other, Daniel would still
prevail." * He is spoken of as an example of God's
protection of the innocent, and his three daily prayers
are taken as our rule of life.'' To him are applied
the verses of Lam. iii. 55-57: "I called upon Thy
name, O Lord, out of the lowest pit. . . . Thou drewest
near in the day that I called : Thou saidst, Fear not.
O Lord, Thou hast pleaded the causes of my soul ;
' Fabricius, Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test., i. 1124.
- Jos., Antt., X. xi. 7. But Pseudo-Epiplianius {De Vit. Dan., x.)
says : Tiyove tQiv i^ox^v tTj^ ^aaiXiKrjs vwr)pi<xia^. So too the Midrash
on Ruth, 7.
" Jos., Anit., X. X. 6. ■* Yonid, f. 77. '' Beraclwtli, f. 31.
THE HISTORIC EXISTENCE OF THE PROPHET 7
Thou hast redeemed my Hfe." We are assured that
he' was of Davidic descent ; obtained permission for
the return of the exiles ; survived till the rebuilding
of the Temple ; lived to a great age, and finally died
in Palestine.^ Rav even went so far as to say, "If
there be any like the Messiah among the living, it is
our Rabbi the Holy : if among the dead, it is Daniel." ^
In the Avoth of Rabbi Nathan it is stated that Daniel
exercised himself in benevolence by endowing brides,
following funerals, and giving alms. One of the
Apocryphal legends respecting him has been widely
spread. It tells us that, when he was a second time
cast into the den of lions under Cyrus, and was fasting
from lack of food, the Prophet Habakkuk was taken
by a hair of his head and carried by the angel of the
Lord to Babylon, to give to Daniel the dinner which
he had prepared for his reapers.^ It is with reference
to this Haggada that in the catacombs Daniel is repre-
sented in the lions' den standing naked between two
lions — an emblem of the soul between sin and death
— and that a youth with a pot of food is by his side.
There is a Persian apocalypse of Daniel translated by
Merx (Arc/iiv, i. 387), and there are a few worthless
' SanJiedrin, f. 93. Midrash Rabba on Ruth, 7, etc., quoted by
Hamburger, Real-Encydopadic, i. 225.
"^ Kiddnshin, f. 72, 6; Hershon, Genesis ace. to the Talmud, p. 471.
' Bel and the Dragon, 33-39. It seems to be an old Midrashic
legend. It is quoted by Dorotheas and Pseudo-Epiphanius, and
referred to by some of the Fathers. Eusebius supposes another
Habakkuk and another Daniel ; but " anachronisms, literary ex-
travagances, or legendary character are obvious on the face of such
narratives. Such faults as these, though valid against anj^ pretensions
to the rank of authentic history, do not render the stories less effective
as pieces of Haggadic satire, or less interesting as preserving vestiges
of a cycle of popular legends relating to Daniel" (Rev. C. J. Ball,
Speaker's Coiunienlary, on Apociyplia, ii. 350),
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Mohammedan legends about him which are given in
D'Herbelot's Bibliotheque orientale. They only serve to
show how widely extended was the reputation which
became the nucleus of strange and miraculous stories.
As in the case of Pythagoras and Empedocles, they
indicate the deep reverence which the ideal of his cha-
racter inspired. They are as the fantastic clouds which
gather about the loftiest mountain peaks. In later
days he seems to have been comparatively forgotten.*
These references would not, however, suffice to prove
Daniel's historical existence. The}' might merely result
from the literal acceptance of the story narrated in the
Book. From the name " Daniel," which is by no means
a common one, and means "Judge of God," nothing can
be learnt. It is only found in three other instances.^
Turning to the Old Testament itself, we have reason
for surprise both in its allusions and its silences. One
only of the sacred writers refers to Daniel, and that
is Ezekiel. In one passage (xxviii. 3) the Prince of
Tyrus is apostrophised in the words, " Behold, thou art
wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide
from thee." In the other (xiv. 14, 20) the word of the
Lord declares to the guilty city, that " though these
three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they
should deliver but their own souls by their righteous-
ness " ; " they shall deliver neither son nor daughter." *
' Hettinger, Hist. Orientalis, p. 92.
, - Ezra viii. 2; Neh. x. 6. In i Chron. iii. i Daniel is an alterna-
tive name for David's son Chileab — perhaps a clerical error. If so, the
names Daniel, Mishael, Azariah, and Hananiah arc only found in the
two post-exilic books, whence Kamphausen supposes them to have
been borrowed by the writer.
^ No valid arguments can be adduced in favour of Winckler's sug-
gestion that Ezek. xxviii. I-IO, xiv. 14-20, are late interpolations. In
these passages the name is spelt ^NJ)"! j not, as in our Book, ^N.IJ'l.
THE HISTORIC EXISTENCE OF THE PROPHET 9
The last words may be regarded as a general allusion,
and therefore we may pass over the circumstance that
Daniel — who was undoubtedly a eunuch in the palace
of Babylon, and who is often pointed to as a fulfilment
of the stern prophecy of Isaiah to Hezekiah ^ — could
never have had either son or daughter.
But in other respects the allusion is surprising.
i. It was very unusual among the Jews to elevate their
contemporaries to such a height of exaltation, and it
is indeed startling that Ezekiel should thus place his
youthful contemporary on such a pinnacle as to unite
his name to those of Noah the antediluvian patriarch
and the mysterious man of Uz.
ii. We might, with Theodoret, Jerome, and Kimchi,
account for the mention of Daniel's name at all in this
connection by the peculiar circumstances of his life ; ^
but there is little probability in the suggestions of
bewildered commentators as to the reason why his
name should be placed between those of Noah and Job.
It is difficult, with Havernick, to recognise any climax in
the order ; ^ nor can it be regarded as quite satisfactory
to say, with Delitzsch, that the collocation is due to the
fact that " as Noah was a righteous man of the old
world, and Job of the ideal world, Daniel represented
immediately the contemporaneous world." * If Job
was a purely ideal instance of exemplary goodness, why
may not Daniel have been the same ?
To some critics the allusion has appeared so strange
that they have referred it to an imaginary Daniel who
had lived at the Court of Nineveh during the Assyrian
' Isa. xxxix. 7.
" See Rosenmuller, Scholia, ad loc.
^ Ezek., p. 207.
* Herzog, R. E., s.v.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
exile ; ^ or to some mythic hero who belonged to ancient
days — perhaps, like Melchizedek, a contemporary of
the ruin of the cities of the Plain. ^ Ewald tries to urge
something for the former conjecture ; yet neither for it
nor for the latter is there any tittle of real evidence.^
This, however, would not be decisive against the hypo-
thesis, since in i Kings iv. 3 1 we have references to men
of pre-eminent wisdom respecting whom no breath of
tradition has come down to us.^
iii. But if we accept the Book of Daniel as literal
history, the allusion of Ezekiel becomes still more diffi-
cult to explain ; for Daniel must have been not only a
contemporary of the prophet of the Exile, but a very
youthful one. We are told — a difficulty to which we
shall subsequently allude — that Daniel was taken captive
in the third year of Jehoiakim (Dan. i. i), about the
year b.c. 606. Ignatius says that he was twelve years
old when he foiled the elders ; and the narrative shows
that he could not have been much older when taken
captive.^ If Ezekiel's prophecy was uttered b.c. 584,
Daniel at that time could only have been twenty-two :
if it was uttered as late as b.c. 572," Daniel would still
have been only thirty-four, and therefore little more
than a youth in Jewish eyes. It is undoubtedly sur-
prising that among Orientals, who regard age as the
chief passport to wisdom, a living youth should be thus
canonised between the Patriarch of the Deluge and the
Prince of Uz.
' Ewald, Proph. d. AH. Bund., ii. 560 ; De Wette, Einleit., % 253.
^ So Von Lcngerke, Dan., xciii. ff. ; Hitzig, Dan., viii.
' He is followed b}' Bunsen, Gott in der Gescli., i. 514.
* Reuss, Heil. Schrift., p. 570.
* Ignat., Ad Magnes, 3 (Long Revision : see Lightfoot, ii., § ii.,
p. 749). So too in Ps. Mar. ad Ignat., 3. Lightfoot thinks that this is a
transference from Solomon {I.e., p. 727), '' See Ezek. xxix. 17.
THE HISTORIC EXISTENCE OF THE PROPHET ii
iv. Admitting" that this pinnacle of eminence may
have been due to the pecuhar splendour of Daniel's
career, it becomes the less easy to account for the
total silence respecting him in the other books of the
Old Testament — in the Prophets who were contem-
poraneous with the Exile and its close, like Haggai,
Zechariah, and Malachi ; and in the Books of Ezra and
Nehemiah, which give us the details of the Return. No
post-exilic prophets seem to know anything of the
Book of Daniel.^ Their expectations of Israel's future
are very different from his.^ The silence of Ezra is
specially astonishing. It has often been conjectured
that it was Daniel who showed to Cyrus the prophecies
of Isaiah.^ Certainly it is stated that he held the very
highest position in the Court of the Persian King ; yet
neither does Ezra mention his existence, nor does
Nehemiah — himself a high functionary in the Court of
Artaxerxes — refer to his illustrious predecessor. Daniel
outlived the first return of the exiles under Zerubbabel,
and he did not avail himself of this opportunity to
revisit the land and desolate sanctuary of his fathers
which he loved so well.'* We might have assumed that
patriotism so burning as his would not have preferred
to stay at Babylon, or at Shushan, when the priests
and princes of his people were returning to the Holy
Cit3^ Others of great age faced the perils of the
Restoration ; and if he stayed behind to be of greater
use to his countrymen, we cannot account for the fact
that he is not distantly alluded to in the record which
' See Zech. ii. 6-10 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 9, etc.
^ See Hag. ii. 6-9, 20-23 ; Zech. ii. 5-17, iii. 8-IO ; Mai. iii. I.
^ Ezra (i. i) does not mention the striking prophecies of the later
Isaiah (xliv. 28, xlv. l), but refers to Jeremiah onlj' (xxv. 12, xxix. 10).
* Dan. X. I-18, vi. 10.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
tells how " the chief of the fathers, with all those whose
spirit God had raised^ rose up to go to build the House
of the Lord which is in Jerusalem." ^ That the difficulty
was felt is shown by the Mohammedan legend that
Daniel did return with Ezra,'^ and that he received the
office of Governor of Syria, from which country he
went back to Susa, where his tomb is still yearly visited
by crowds of adoring pilgrims.
v. If we turn to the New Testament, the name of
Daniel only occurs in the reference to "the abomina-
tion of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet." ^
The Book of Revelation does not name him, but is
profoundly influenced by the Book of Daniel both in
its form and in the symbols which it adopts.''
vi. In the Apocr^'^pha Daniel is passed over in
complete silence among the lists of Hebrew heroes
enumerated b}' Jesus the son of Sirach. We are even
told that " neither was there a man born like unto
Joseph, a leader of his brethren, a stay of the people "
(Ecclus. xlix. 15). This is the more singular because
not only are the achievements of Daniel under four
heathen potentates greater than those of Joseph under
one Pharaoh, but also several of the stones of Daniel at
once remind us of the story of Joseph, and even appear
to have been written with silent reference to the
youthful Hebrew and his fortunes as an Egyptian slave
who was elevated to be governor of the land of his
exile.
■ Ezra i. 5. "^ D'Herbelot, I.e.
'■' Matt. xxiv. 15 ; Mark xiii. 14. There can be of course no certainty
that the "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" is not the comment of
the Evangehst.
* See Elliott, Horce Apocalyplicce, passim.
CHAPTER II
GENERAL SURVEY OF THE BOOK
I. The Language
UNABLE to learn anything further respecting the
professed author of the Book of Daniel, we now
turn to the Book itself In this section I shall merely
give a general sketch of its main external phenomena,
and shall chiefly pass in review those characteristics
which, though they have been used as arguments
respecting the age in which it originated, are not abso-
lutely irreconcilable with the supposition of any date
between the termination of the Exile (b.c. 536) and the
death of Antiochus Epiphanes (b.c. 164).
I. First we notice the fact that there is an inter-
change of the first and third person. In chapters i.-vi.
Daniel is mainly spoken of in the third person : in
chapters vii.-xii. he speaks mainly in the first.
Kranichfeld tries to account for this by the supposi-
tion that in chapters i.-vi. we practically have extracts
from Daniel's diaries,* whereas in the remainder of the
Book he describes his own visions. The point cannot
be much insisted upon, but the mention of his own
high praises {e.g., in such passages as vi. 4) is perhaps
hardly what we should have expected.
II. Next we observe that the Book of Daniel, like
' Kranichfeld, Das Buck Daniel, p. 4.
14 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
the Book of Ezra ' is written partly in the sacred
Hebrew, partly in the vernacular Aramaic, which is
often, but erroneously, called Chaldee.^
The first section (i. l-ii. ^a) is in Hebrew. The
language changes to Aramaic after the words, " Then
spake the Chaldeans to the king /;/ Syriac" (ii. 4^);^
and this is continued to vii. 28. The eighth chapter
begins with the words, " In the third year of the reign
of King Bclshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even
unto me Daniel " ; and here the Hebrew is resumed,
and is continued till the end of the Book.
The question at once arises why the two languages
were used in the same Book.
It is easy to understand that, during the course of
the seventy years' Exile, many of the Jews became
practically bilingual, and would be able to write with
equal facility in one language or in the other.
This circumstance, then, has no bearing on the date
of the Book. Down to the Maccabean age some books
continued to be written in Hebrew. These books must
have found readers. Hence the knowledge of Hebrew
cannot have died away so completely as has been
supposed. The notion that after the return from the
' See Ezra iv. 7, vi. 18, vii. 12-26.
- "The term 'Chaldee' for the Aramaic of either the Bible or the
Targums is a misnomer, the use of which is only a source of con-
fusion " (Driver, p. 471). A single verse of Jeremiah (x. Il) is in
Aramaic: "Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods who made not
heaven and earth shall perish from the earth and from under
heaven." Perhaps Jeremiah gave the verse "to the Jews as an
answer to the heathen among whom thej'' were" (Pusey, p. II).
^ n''P"lX; LXX., SupioTi — «>., in Aramaic. The word may be a gloss,
as it is in Ezra iv. 7 (Lenormant). Sec, however, Kamphausen, p. 14.
We cannot here enter into minor points, such as that in ii.-vi. we
have -PX for "see," and in vii. 2, 3, •1"IX ; which Meinhold takes to
prove that the historic section is earlier tJian the prophetic.
GENERAL SURVEY 15
Exile Hebrew was at once superseded by Aramaic is
untenable. Hebrew long continued to be the language
normally spoken at Jerusalem (Neh. xiii. 24), and the ,
Jews did not bring back Aramaic with them to Palestine. (
but found it there. ^
But it is not clear why the linguistic divisions in
the Book were adopted. Auberlen says that, after the
introduction, the section ii. 4 a-\\\. 28 was written in
Chaldee, because it describes the development of the
power of the Vv^orld from a world-historic point of view ;
and that the remainder of the Book was written in
Hebrew, because it deals with the development of the
world-powers in their relation to Israel the people of
God.^ There is very little to be said in favour of a
structure so little obvious and so highly artificial. A
simpler solution of the difficulty would be that which
accounts for the use of Chaldee by saying that it was
adopted in those parts which involved the introduc-
tion of Aramaic documents. This, however, would not
account for its use in chap, vii., which is a chapter
of visions in which Hebrew might have been naturally
expected as the vehicle of prophecy. Strack and Mein-
hold think that the Aramaic and Hebrew parts are of
different origin. Konig supposes that the Aramaic
sections were meant to indicate special reference to the
Syrians and Antiochus,^ Some critics have thought it
possible that the Aramaic sections were once written in
Hebrew. That the text of Daniel has not been very
' Driver, p. 471 ; NOldeke, Enc. Brit., xxi. 647; Wright, Grammar,
p. 16. Ad. Merx has a treatise on Citr in lib. Dan.ju.xta Hebr. Ara-
niaica sit adhibita dialectus, 1865 ; but his solution, " Scriptorem omnia
quae rudioribus vulgi ingeniis apta viderentur Aramaice praeposuisse "
is wholly untenable.
"" Auberlen, Dan., pp. 28, 29 (E. Tr.), ' Einleit., § 383.
l6 THE BOOK OF PANIEL
carefully kept becomes clear from the liberties to which
it was subjected by the Septuagint translators. If the
Hebrew of Jer, x. 1 1 (a verse which only exists in
Aramaic) has been lost, it is not inconceivable that the
, same may have happened to the Hebrew of a section of
.Daniel.^
The Talmud throws no light on the question. It
only says that —
i. "The men of the Great Synagogue wrote "^ — by
which is perhaps meant that they "edited" — "the Book
of Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, the Book of
Daniel, and the Book of Ezra " ; ^ and that —
ii. " The Chaldee passages in the Book of Ezra and
the Book of Daniel defile the hands." ^
The first of these two passages is merely an assertion
that the preservation, the arrangement, and the admis-
sion into the Canon of the books mentioned was due
to the body of scribes and priests — a very shadowy
and unhistorical body— known as the Great Synagogue.*^
The second passage sounds startling, but is nothing
more than an authoritative declaration that the Chaldee
sections of Daniel and Ezra are still parts of Holy
Scripture, though not written in the sacred language.
It is a standing rule of the Talmudists that All
Holy Scripture defiles the hands — even the long-disputed
Books of Ecclesiastes and Canticles." Lest any should
' Cheyne, Enc, Brit., s.v. " Daniel."
^ 12113. See 2 Esdras xiv. 22-48 : " In forty da5's they ivrote two
hundred and four books."
^ Bdba-Batlua, f. 15, 6 : comp. Sanhedrin, f. 83, 6.
■* Yaddayim, 'w. ; Misli., 5.
■^ See Rau, De Synag. Magna., ii. 66 ff. ; Kuenen, Over de Mawien
der Groote Synagoge, 1876 ; Ewald, Hist, of Israel, v. 168-170 (E. Tr.) ;
Westcott, s.v. "Canon ' (Smith's Diet., i. 500).
* Yaddayim, iii. ; Mish., 5 ; Hershon, Treasut'cs of the Talmud,
PP- 41-43-
GENERAL SURVEY I7
misdoubt the sacredness of the Chaldee sections, they
are expressly included in the rule. It seems to have
originated thus : The eatables of the heave offerings
were kept in close proximity to the scroll of the Law,
for both were considered equally sacred. If a mouse
or rat happened to nibble either, the offerings and the
books became defiled, and therefore defiled the hands
that touched them.^ To guard against this hypothetical
defilement it was decided that all handling of the
Scriptures should be followed by ceremonial ablutions.
To say that the Chaldee chapters '' defile the hands "
is the Rabbinic way of declaring their Canonicity.
Perhaps nothing certain can be inferred from the
philological examination either of the Hebrew or of
the Chaldee portions of the Book ; but they seem to
indicate a date not earlier than the age of Alexander
(b.c. 333). On this part of the subject there has been
a great deal of rash and incompetent assertion. It
involves delicate problems on which an independent
and a valuable opinion can onl}^ be offered by the merest
handful of living scholars, and respecting which even
these scholars sometimes disagree. In deciding upon
such points ordinary students can only weigh the
authority and the arguments of specialists who have
devoted a minute and lifelong study to the grammar
and history of the Semitic languages,
I know no higher contemporary authorities on the
date of Hebrew writings than the late veteran scholar
F. Delitzsch and Professor Driver.
I. Nothing was more beautiful and remarkable in Pro-
fessor Delitzsch than the open-minded candour which
compelled him to the last to advance with advancing
' Hershon {I.e.) refers to Sliabbath, i. 14, i.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
thought ; to admit all fresh elements of evidence ; to
continue his education as a Biblical inquirer to the
latest days of his life ; and without hesitation to correct,
modify, or even reverse his previous conclusions in
accordance with the results of deeper study and fresh
discoveries. He wrote the article on Daniel in Merzog's
Real-Evcyclopadie, and in the first edition of that work
maintained its genuineness ; but in the later editions
(iii. 470) his views approximate more and more to those
of the Higher Criticism. Of the Hebrew of Daniel he
says that " it attaches itself here and there to Eze-
kiel, and also to Habakkuk ; in general character it
resembles the Hebrew of the Chronicler who wrote
shortly before the beginning of the Greek period (b.c.
332), and as compared either with the ancient Hebrew,
or with the Hebrew of the MisJinah is full of singu-
larities and harshnesses of style." ^
So far, then, it is clear that, if the Hebrew mainly
resembles that of b.c. 332, it is hardly likely that it
should have been written before e.g. 536.
Professor Driver says, "The Hebrew of Daniel in
all distinctive features resembles, not the Hebrew of
Ezekiel, or even of Haggai and Zechariah, but that of
the age subsequent to Nehemiah " — whose age forms
the great turning-point in Hebrew style.
He proceeds to give a list of linguistic peculiarities
in support of this view, and other specimens of sen-
tences constructed, not in the style of classical Hebrew,
' Herzog, I.e. ; so too KOnig, Ehileit., § 387 : " Das Hebr. der B.
Dan. ist nicht bios nachexilisch sondern auch nachchronistisch." He
instances ribbo (Dan. xi. 12) for rebaba, "myriads" (Ezek. xvi. "]) ;
and taniid, "the daily burnt ofiering " (Dan. viii. ll), as post-Biblical
Hebrew for 'olath hataMiid (Neh. x. 34), etc. Margoliouth {Expositor,
April 1890) thinks that the Hebrew proves a date before b.c. 168:
on which view see Driver, p. 483.
GENERAL SURVEY 19
but in " the later uncouth style " of the Book of
Chronicles. He points out in a note that it is no
explanation of these peculiarities to argue that, during
his long exile, Daniel may have partially forgotten the
language of his youth ; '' for this would not account
for the resemblance of the new and decadent idioms to
those which appeared in Palestine independently two
hundred and fifty years afterwards." ^ Behrmann, in
the latest commentary on Daniel, mentions, in proof of
the late character of the Hebrew : (i) the introduction
of Persian words which could not have been used in
Babylonian before the conquest of Cyrus (as in i. 3, 5i
xi. 45, etc. ; (2) many Aramaic or Aramaising words,
expressions, and grammatical forms (as in i. 5, 10, 12,
16, viii. 18, 22, X. 17, 21, etc.); (3) neglect of strict
accuracy in the use of the Hebrew tenses (as in viii.
14, ix. 3 f., xi. 4f, etc.) ; (4) the borrowing of archaic
expressions from ancient sources (as in viii. 26, ix. 2,
xi. 10, 40, etc.) ; (5.) the use of technical terms and
periphrases common in Jewish apocalypses (xi. 6, 13,
35, 40, etc.).^
2. These views of the character of the Hebrew agree
with those of previous scholars. Bertholdt and Kirms
declare that its character differs toto genere from what
might have been expected had the Book been genuine.
Gesenius says that the language is even more corrupt
than that of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi. Professor
Driver says the Persian words presuppose a period
after the Persian Empire had been well established ;
the Greek words demand^ the Hebrew supports, and the
Aramaic permits a date after the conquest of Palestine
by Alexander the Great. De Wette and Ewald have
' Lit, of Old Test., pp. 473-476. - Das Buch Dan., iii.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
pointed out the lack of the old passionate spontaneity
of early prophecy ; the absence of the numerous and
profound paronomasiae, or plays on words, which cha-
racterised the burning oratory of the prophets ; and
the peculiarities of the style — which is sometimes
obscure and careless, sometimes pompous, iterative,
and artificial.^
3. It is noteworthy that in this Book the name of
the great Babylonian conqueror, with whom, in the
narrative part, Daniel is thrown into such close con-
nexion, is invariably written in the absolutely erroneous
form which his name assumed in later centuries —
Nebuchadnezzar. A contemporary, familiar with the
Babylonian language, could not have been ignorant of
the fact that the only correct form of the name is
Nebuchad;iezzar — i.e., Nebu-kudurri-iitsiir^ " Nebo pro-
tect the throne."^
4. But the erroneous form Neduchadnezzar is not
the only one which entirely militates against the
notion of a contemporary vvriter. There seem to be
other mistakes about Bab3'lonian matters into which
a person in Daniel's position could not have fallen.
Thus the name Belteshazzar seems to be connected
in the writer's mind with Bel, the favourite deity of
Nebuchadrezzar ; but it can only mean Balatu-iitsiir,
" his life protect," which looks like a mutilation.
Ah^d-nego is an astonishingly corrupt form for Abed-
nabu, " the servant of Nebo." Hammelzar, Shadrach,
Meshach, Ashpenaz, are declared by Assyriologists to
' See Glassius, Philol. Sacr., p. 931 ; Ewald, Die Proph. d. A.
Bundes, i. 48; De Wette, Einleit., § 347.
■^ Ezekicl always uses the correct form (xxvi. 7, xxix. 18, xxx. lO~.
Jeremiah uses the correct form except in passages which properly
belong to the Book of Kings.
GENERAL SURVEY
be " out of keeping with Babylonian science." In ii. 48
si'gnin means a civdl ruler ; — does not imply Archimagus,
as the context seems to require, but, according to Lenor-
mant, a high civil officer.
5. The Aramaic of Daniel closely resembles that
of Ezra. Noldeke calls it a Palestinian or Western
Aramaic dialect, later than that of the Book of Ezra.^
It is of earlier type than that of the Targums of
Jonathan and Onkelos ; but that fact has very little
bearing on the date of the Book, because the differ-
ences are slight, and the resemblances manifold, and
the Targums did not appear till after the Christian
Era, nor assume their present shape perhaps before
the fourth century. Further, " recently discovered in-
scriptions have shown that many of the forms in which
the Aramaic of Daniel differs from that of the Targums
were actually in use in neighbouring countries down \
to the first century a.d." ^
6. Two further philological considerations bear on
the age of the Book.
i. One of these is the existence of no less than
fifteen Persian words (according to Noldeke and
others), especially in the Aramaic part. These words,
' Noldeke, Sentit. Spr., p. 30; Driver, p. 472; Konig, p. 387.
• Driver, p. 472, and the authorities there quoted; as against
McGill and Pusey {Daniel, pp. 45 ff., 602 ff.). Dr. Pusey's is the
fullest repertory of arguments in favour of the authenticity of Daniel,
many of which have become more and more obviously untenable
as criticism advances. But he and Keil add little or nothing to what
had been ingeniously elaborated by Hengstenberg and Havernick.
For a sketch of the peculiarities in the Aramaic see Behrmann,
Daniel, v.-x. Renan {Hist. Ge'n.des Langnes Sem., p. 219) exaggerates
when he says, " La langue des parties chaldennes est beaucoup plus
basse que celle des fragments chaldeens du Livre d'Esdras, et s'incline
beaticoup vers la langue du Talmud."
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
which would not be surprising after the complete
establishment of the Persian Empire, are surprising in
passages which describe Bab3ionian institutions before
the conquest of Cyrus.^ Various attempts have been
made to account for this phenomenon. Professor Fuller
attempts to show, but with little success, that some of
them may be Semitic.^ Others argue that they are
amply accounted for by the Persian trade which, as
may be seen from the Records of the Past,^ existed
between Persia and Babylonia as early as the days
of Belshazzar. To this it is replied that some of the
words are not of a kind which one nation would at
once borrow from another/ and that " no Persian
words have hitherto been found in Assyrian or
Babylonian inscriptions prior to the conquest of
Babylon b}^ C3a-us, except the name of the god Mithra."
ii. But the linguistic evidence unfavourable to the
genuineness of the Book of Daniel is far stronger than
this, in the startling fact that it contains at least three
Greek words. After giving the fullest consideration to
all that has been urged in refutation of the conclusion,
this circumstance has alwa3's been to me a strong con-
firmation of the view that the Book of Daniel in its
present form is not older than the days of Antiochus
Epiphanes.
Those three Greek words occur in the list of musical
instruments mentioned in iii. 5, 7, 10, 15. They are :
DlJT'p, kitharos, KldapL<;, " harp " ; |nn3D3, psanterin,
' Meinhold, Beitrage, pp. 30-32 ; Driver, p. 470.
" Speaker's Conimentary, vi. 246-250.
' New Series, iii. 124.
* E.g., Din, "limb"; t"l, "secret"; DJOD, "message."' There are
no Persian words in Ezekiel, Haggai, Zcchariah, or Malachi ; they are
found in Ezra and Esther, which were written long after the establish-
ment of the Persian Empire.
GENERAL SURVEY
yjraXTijpiov, " psaltery " ; ' J<*3D01D, sfiinpdnydhj avixjxavta,
A.V. "dulcimer/' but perhaps " bagpipes.""
Be it remembered that these musical instruments are
described as having been used at the great idol-festival
of Nebuchadrezzar (b.c. 550). Now, this is the date at
which Pisistratus was tyrant at Athens, in the days of
Pythagoras and Polycrates, before Athens became a
fixed democracy. It is just conceivable that in those
days the Babylonians might have borrowed from Greece
the word kiiharis.^ It is, indeed, supremely unlikely^
because the harp had been known in the East from the
earliest days ; and it is at least as probable that Greece,
which at this time was only beginning to sit as a learner
at the feet of the immemorial East, borrowed the idea
of the instrument from Asia. Let it, however, be
admitted that such words as yayin, " wine " (olw?),
lappid, " a torch " (XaixTrds!), and a few others, may indi-
cate some early intercourse between Greece and the
East, and that some commercial relations of a rudi-
mentary kind were existent even in prehistoric days.*
But what are we to say of the two other words ?
Both are derivatives. Psolterion does not occur in
Greek before Aristotle (d. 322) ; nor sttmphonia before
Plato (d. 347). In relation to music, and probably as
the name of a musical instrument, sumphonia is first
' The change of « for /is not uncommon : comp. ^ivriov, (pivraTos, etc.
- The word Xp3t^*, Sad'ka, also bears a suspicious resemblance
to (Tafj.[3uKr], but Athenseus says (Deipnos., iv. 173) that the instru-
ment was invented by the Syrians. Some have seen in kifyds (iii. 4,
" herald '') the Greek Krjpv^, and in hamnik, " chain," the Greek jj.avi.dKrj% :
but these cannot be pressed.
* It is true that there was some small intercourse between even
the Assyrians and lonians (Ja-am-na-a) |as far back as the days of
Sargon (b.c. 722-705) ; but not enough to account for sncli words.
* Sayce, Contcmp. Rev., December 1878.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
used by Polybius (xxvi. lo, § 5, xxxi. 4, § 8), and in
express connexion with the festivities of the very king
with whom the apocalpytic section of Daniel is mainly
occupied — Antiochus Epiphancs.' The attempts of
Professor Fuller and others to derive these words
from Semitic roots are a desperate resource, and cannot
win the assent of a single trained philologist. " These
words," says Professor Driver, " could not have been
used in the Book of Daniel, unless it had been written
after the dissemination of Greek influence in Asia
through the conquest of Alexander the Great."^
2. The Unity of the Book
The Unity of the Book of Daniel is now generally
admitted. No one thought of questioning it in days
before the dawn of criticism, but in 1772 Eichhorn and
Corrodi doubted the genuineness of the Book. J. D.
Michaelis endeavoured to prove that it was ''a col-
lection of fugitive pieces," consisting of six historic
pictures, followed by four prophetic visions.^ Bertholdt,
followed the erroneous tendency of criticism which
found a foremost exponent in Ewald, and imagined the
possibility of detecting the work of many different
' Some argue that in this passage <TuiJ.(pwvia means "a concert" (comp.
Luke XV. 25) ; but Polybius mentions it with " a horn " (/cepdrtoj').
Behrmann (p. ix) connects it with crirpwi', and makes it mean "a
pipe."
" Pusey says all he can on the other side (pp. 23-28), and has not
changed the opinion of scholars (pp. 27-33). Fabre d'Envieu (i. loi)
also desperately denies the existence of any Greek words. On the
other side see Derenbourg, Les Mots grecs dans le Livre biblique de
Daniel (Melanges Graux, 1884).
' Orient, u. Exeg. Bibliothek, 1772, p. 141. This view was revived
by Lagardc in the Gottingeu Gel. Anzeigeu, 1891.
GENERAL SURVEY 25
hands. He divided the Book into fragments by nine
different authors/
Zockler, in Lange's Bibelwerk, persuaded himself
that the old " orthodox " views of Hengstenberg and
Auberlen were right ; but he could only do this by
sacrificing the authenticity of parts of the Book, and
assuming more than one redaction. Thus he supposes
that xi. 5-39 are an interpolation by a writer in the
days of Antiochus Epiphanes. Similarly, Lenormant
admits interpolations in the first half of the Book.
But to concede this is practically to give up the Book
of Daniel as it now stands.
The ujiity of the Book of Daniel is still admitted or
assumed by most critics.^ It has only been recently
questioned in two directions.
Meinhold thinks that the Aramaic and historic sec-
^ Daniel neu LJbersetz. 11. Erklcirt., 1808; Kohler, Lehrbtich,'\\. 577.
The first who suspected the unity of the Book because of the two
languages was Spinoza (_Tract-historicopol,x. i3off.). Newton {Obser-
vatioiis upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse, i. 10) and
Beausobre {Reniarques sur le Nouv. Test,, i. 70) shared the doubt
because of the use of the first person in the prophetic (Dan. vii.-xii.)
and the third in the historic section (Dan. i.-vi.). Michaelis, Bertholdt,
and Reuss considered that its origin was fragmentary ; and Lagarde
(who dated the seventh chapter a.d. 69) calls it "a bundle of fly-
leaves." Meinhold and Strack, like Eichhorn, regard the historic
section as older than the prophetic ; and Cornill thinks that the Book
was put together in great haste. Similarly, Graf {Der Prophet Jerentia)
regards the Aramaic verse, Jer. x. II, as a marginal gloss. Lagarde
argues, from the silence of Josephus about many points, that he could
not have had the present Book of Daniel before him {e.g., Dan. vii.
or ix.-xii.) ; but the argument is unsafe. Josephus seems to have
understood the Fourth Empire to be the Roman, and did not venture
to write of its destruction. For this reason he does not explain
"the stone"' of Dan. ii. 45.
- By De Wette, Schrader, Hitzig, Evvald, Gesenius, Bleek, Delitzsch,
Von Lengerke, Stahelin, Kamphausen, Wellhausen, etc. Reuss,
however, says (Heil. Schrift., p. 575), " Man konnte auf die Vorstellung
26 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
tions are older than the rest of the Book, and were
written about B.C. 300 to convert the Gentiles to
monotheism.^ He argues that the apocalpytic section
was written later, and was subsequently incorporated
with the Book. A somewhat similar view is held by
ZOckler,- and some have thought that Daniel could
never have written of himself in such highly favour-
.able terms as, e.g., in Dan. vi. 4.^ The first chapter,
which is essential as an introduction to the Book, and
the seventh, which is apocalpytic, and is yet in Aramaic,
create objections to the acceptance of this theory.
Further, it is impossible not to observe a certain unity
of style and parallelism of treatment between the two
parts. Thus, if the prophetic section is mainly devoted
to Antiochus Epiphanes, the historic section seems to
have an allusive bearing on his impious madness. In
ii. 10, II, and vi. 8, we have descriptions of daring
Pagan edicts, which might be intended to furnish a
contrast with the attempts of Antiochus to suppress the
worship of God. The feast of Belshazzar may well be a
"reference to the Syrian despot's revelries at Daphne."
Again, in ii. 43 — where the mixture of iron and clay is
explained by " they shall mingle themselves with the
kommen das Buch habe mehr als einen Verfasser"; and K6nig thinks
that the original form of the book may have ended with chap. vii.
{Einlcit., § 3S4).
' Bcitmge, 1 888. See too Kranichfeld, Das Buch Daniel, p. 4. The
view is refuted by Budde, Theol. Lit. Zeitung, 1888, No. 26. The
conjecture has often occurred to critics. Thus Sir Isaac Newton,
believing that Daniel wrote the last six chapters, thought that the
six first "are a collection of historical papers written by others''
{Observations, i. lo).
^ Einleit., p. 6.
' Other critics who incline to one or other modification of this view
of the two Daniels are Tholuck, d. A. T. in N. T., 1872; C. v. Orelli,
Alltest. Weissag., 1882 ; and Strack.
GENERAL SURVEY 27
seed of men" — it seems far from improbable that there
is a reference to the unhappy intermarriages of Ptolemies
and Seleucidae. Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II.
(Philadelphus), married Antiochus II. (Theos), and this
is alluded to in the vision of xi. 6. Cleopatra, daughter
of Antiochus III. (the Great), married Ptolemy V.
(Epiphanes), which is alluded to in xi. ly} The style
seems to be stamped throughout with the characteristics
of an individual mind, and the most cursory glance
suffices to show that the historic and prophetic parts
are united by many points of connexion and resem-
blance. Meinhold is quite unsuccessful in the attempt
to prove a sharp contrast of views between the sections.
The interchange of persons — the third person being
mainly used in the first seven chapters, and the first
person in the last five — may be partly due to the final
editor ; but in any case it may easily be paralleled, and
is found in other writers, as in Isaiah (vii. 3, xx. 2)
and the Book of Enoch (xii.).
But it may be said in general that the authenticity^
of the Book is now rarely defended by any competent
critic, except at the cost of abandoning certain sections
of it as interpolated additions ; and as Mr. Bevan some-
what caustically remarks, "the defenders of Daniel
have, during the last few years, been employed chiefly
in cutting Daniel to pieces." ^
3. The General Tone of the Book
The general tone of the Book marks a new era in
the education and progress of the Jews. The lessons
' Hengstenberg also points to verbal resemblances between ii. 44
and vii. 14; iv. 5 and vii. i ; ii. 31 and vii. 2; ii. 38 and vii. 17, etc.
(^Genuineness of Daniel, E. Tr., pp. 186 ff.).
'" A Short Cornt-nentary, p. 8.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
of the Exile uplifted them from a too narrow and
absorbing particularism to a wider interest in the
destinies of humanity. They were led to recognise
that God " has made of one every nation of men for
to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined
their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habita-
tion ; that they should seek God, if haply they might
feel after Him, and find Him, though He is not far
from each one of us."^ The standpoint of the Book
of Daniel is larger and more cosmopolitan in this re-
spect than that of earlier prophecy. Israel had begun
to mingle more closely with other nations, and to be a
sharer in their destinies. Politicall}' the Hebrew race
no longer formed a small though independent kingdom,
but was reduced to the position of an entirely insigni-
ficant sub-province in a mighty empire. The Messiah
is no longer the Son of David, but the Son of Man ;
no longer only the King of Israel, but of the world.
Mankind — not only the seed of Jacob — fills the field of
prophetic vision. Amid widening horizons of thought
the Jews turned their eyes upon a great past, rich in
events, and crowded with the figures of heroes, saints,
and sages. At the same time the world seemed to be
growing old, and its ever-deepening wickedness seemed
to call for some final judgment. We begin to trace
in the Hebrew writings the colossal conceptions, the
monstrous imagery, the daring conjectures, the more
complex religious ideas, of an exotic fancy.^
" The giant forms of Empires on their way
To ruin, dim and vast,"
begin to fling their weird and sombre shadows over
the page of sacred history and prophetic anticipation.
' Acts xvii. 26, 27. ' See Hitzig, p. xii ; Auberlen, p. 4i.
GENERAL SURVEY 29
4. The Style of the Book
The style of the Book of Daniel is new, and has
very marked characteristics, indicating its late position
in the Canon. It is rhetorical rather than poetic.
" Totum Danielis librum," says Lowth, "e poetarum
censu excludo." ^ How widely does the style differ from
the rapt passion and glowing picturesqueness of Isaiah,
from the elegiac tenderness of Jeremiah, from the
lyrical sweetness of many of the Psalms ! How very
little does it correspond to the three great requirements
of poetry, that it should be, as Milton so finely said,
" simple, sensuous, passionate " ! A certain artifi-
ciality of diction, a sounding oratorical stateliness,
enhanced b}^ dignified periphrases and leisurely repeti-
tions, must strike the most casual reader ; and this is
sometimes carried so far as to make the movement of
the narrative heavy and pompous.^ This peculiarity
is not found to the same extent in any other book of
the Old Testament Canon, but it recurs in the Jewish
writings of a later age. From the apocryphal books,
for instance, the poetical element is with trifling ex-
ceptions, such as the Song of the Three Children,
entirely absent, while the taste for rhetorical ornamenta-
tion, set speeches, and dignified elaborateness is found
in many of them.
This evanescence of the poetic and impassioned ele-
ment separates Daniel from the Prophets, and marks
' Reuss says too severely, " Die Schilderungen aller dieser
Vorgange machen keinen gewinnenden Eindruck. . . . Der Stil ist
unbeholfen, die Figuren grotesk, die Farben grell." He admits,
however, the suitableness of the Book for the Maccabean epoch, and
the deep impression it made {Hcil. Schriff. A. T., p. 571).
''■ See iii. 2, 3, 5, 7 ; viii. i, 10, 19; xi. 15, 22, 31, etc.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
the place of the Book among the Hagiographa, where
it was placed by the Jews themselves. In all the great
Hebrew seers we find something of the ecstatic trans-
port, the fire shut up within the bones and breaking
forth from the volcanic heart, the burning lips touched
by the hands of seraphim Vv'ith a living coal from off the
altar. The word for prophet {iiabi, Vates) implies an
inspired singer rather than a soothsayer or seer {roeh,
chozeli). It is applied to Deborah and Miriam ^ because
they poured forth from exultant hearts the psean of
victory. Hence arose the close connexion between
music and poetry." Elisha required the presence of a
minstrel to soothe the agitation of a heart thrown into
tumult by the near presence of a revealing Power.^
Just as the Greek word fxdvTL<i, from /xaivofxac, implies
a sort of niadness, and recalls the foaming lip and
streaming hair of the spirit-dilated messenger, so the
Hebrew verb naba meant, not only to proclaim God's
oracles, but to be inspired by His possession as with
a Divine frenzy.* " Madman " seemed a natural term
to apply to the messenger of Elisha.^ It is easy there-
fore to see why the Book of Daniel was not placed
among the prophetic rolls. This vri-a passio, this
ecstatic elevation of thought and feeling, are wholly
wanting in this earliest attempt at a philosophy of
history. We trace in it none of that " blasting with
excess of light," none of that shuddering sense of being
uplifted out of self, which marks the higher and earlier
' Exod. XV. 20 ; Judg. iv. 4.
^ I Sam. X. 5 ; I Chron. xxv. i, 2, 3.
^ 2 Kings iii. 15.
* Jer. xxix. 26; I Sam. xviii. 10, xix. 21-24.
! * 2 Kings ix. 11. See Expositor's Bible, Second Book of Kings,
p. 113.
GENERAL SURVEY
forms of prophetic inspiration. Daniel is addressed
through the less exalted medium of visions, and in his
visions there is less of " the faculty Divine." The
instinct — if instinct it were and not knowledge of the
real origin of the Book^ — which led the " Men of the
Great Synagogue " to place this Book among the Ketub-
hi})i, not among the Prophets, was wise and sure.^
5. The Standpoint of the Author
"In Daniel oflnet sicli einc ganz neue Welt."— Eichhorn, Eiiileit.,
iv. 472.
The author of the Book of Daniel seems naturally to
place himself on a level lower than that of the prophets
who had gone before him. He does not count himself
among the prophets ; on the contrary, he puts them far
higher than himself, and refers to them as though they
belonged to the dim and distant past (ix. 2, 6). In his
prayer of penitence he confesses, " Neither have we
hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake
in Thy Name to our kings, our princes, and our
fathers " ; " Neither have we obeyed the voice of the
Lord our God, to walk in His laws, which He set before
us by His servants the prophets." Not once does he
use the mighty formula " Thus saith Jehovah " — not
once does he assume, in the prophecies, a tone of high
personal authority. He shares the view of the Macca-
bean age that prophecy is dead.^
' On this subject see Ewald, Propli. d. A. Bundcs, i. 6; Novalis,
Schriften, ii. 472 ; Herder, Geist der Ebr. Poeste, ii. 61 ; Knobel,
Prophetisinus, i. 1 03. Even the Latin poets were called propheta,
"bards" (Varro, De Ling. Lat., vi. 3). Epimenides is called "a
prophet " in Tit. i. 12. See Plato, Tim., "jz, a. ; Phadr., 262, d. ; Find.,
Fr., 118 ; and comp. Eph. iii. 5, iv. il.
- Dan. ix. 6, 10. So conscious was the Maccabean age of the
absence of prophets, that, just asi after the Captivity a question is
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
In Dan. ix. 2 we lind yet anotner decisive indication
of the late age of this writing, lie tells us that he
•'understood by books" (more correctly, as in the A.V.,
" by the books " ^) the number of the years whereof the
word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet." The
writer here represents himself as a humble student of
previous prophets, and this necessarily marks a position
of less freshness and independence. "To the old
prophets," says Bishop Westcott, " Daniel stands in
some sense as a commentator." No doubt the posses-
sion of those living oracles was an immense blessing,
a rich inheritance ; but it involved a danger. Truths
established by writings and traditions, safe-guarded by
schools and institutions, are too apt to come to men
only as a power from without, and less as " a hidden
and inly burning flame." ^
By " the books " can hardly be meant anything but
some approach to a definite Canon. If so, the Book of
Daniel in its present form can only have been written
subsequently to the days of Ezra. " The account
which assigns a collection of books to Nehemiah
(2 Mace. ii. 13)," says Bishop Westcott, "is in itself
a confirmation of the general truth of the gradual
formation of the Canon during the Persian period.
The various classes of books were completed in succes-
postponed ".till there should arise a priest with the Urim and
Thummin," so Judas postponed the decision about the stones of the
desecrated altar " until there should come a prophet to show what
should be done with them " (l Mace. iv. 45, 46, ix. 27, xiv. 41). Comp.
Song of the Three Children, 15 ; Psalm Ixxiv. 9 ; Sota, f. 48, 2. See
infra, Introd., chap. viii.
' Dan. ix. 2, hassepharhn, to. ^i/3\ta.
■^ Ewald, Proph. d. A. B., p. 10. Judas Maccabseus is also said to'
have "restored " {ewLavvijya.'yi) the lost (StaTreTrTWKora) sacred writings
(2 Mace. ii. 14).
GENERAL SURVEY 33
sion ; and this view harmonises with what must have
been tlic natural development of the Jewish faith after
the Return. The persecution of Antiochus (b.c. 168)
was for the Old Testament what the persecution of
Diocletian was for the New — the final crisis which
stamped the sacred writings with their peculiar character.
The king sought out the Books of the Law (i Mace. i.
56) and burnt them ; and the possession of a * Book
of the Covenant ' was a capital crime. According to
the common tradition, the proscription of the Law led
to the public use of the writings of the prophets." ^
The whole method of Daniel differs even from that of
the later and inferior prophets of the Exile-^Haggai,
Malachi, and the second Zechariah. The Book is rather
an apocalypse than a prophecy : " the eye and not the
ear is the organ to which the chief appeal is made."
Though symbolism in the form of visions is not un-
known to Ezekiel and Zechariah, yet those prophets are
far from being apocalyptic in character. On the other
hand, the grotesque and gigantic emblems of Daniel
— these animal combinations, these interventions of
dazzling angels who float in the air or over the water,
these descriptions of historical events under the veil
of material types seen in dreams — are a frequent pheno-
menon in such late apocryphal writings as the Second
Book of Esdras, the Book of Enoch, and the prae-
Christian Sibylline oracles, in which talking lions and
eagles, etc., are frequent. Indeed, this style of symbolism
originated among the Jews from their contact with the
graven mysteries and colossal images of Babylonian
worship. The Babylonian Exile formed an epoch in
' Smith's Did. of the Bible, i. 501. The daily lesson from the
Prophets was called the Haphiarah (Hamburger, Real-EncycL, ii. 334).
3
34 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
the intellectual development of Israel fully as important
as the sojourn in Egypt. It was a stage in their moral
and religious education. It was the psychological pre-
paration requisite for the moulding of the last phase
of revelation — that apocalyptic form which succeeds to
theophany and prophecy, and embodies the final results
of national religious inspiration. That the apocalyptic
method of dealing with history in a religious and an
imaginative manner naturally arises towards the close
of any great cycle of special revelation is illustrated
by the flood of apocalypses which overflowed the early
literature of the Christian Church. But the Jews clearly
saw that, as a rule, an apocalypse is inherently inferior
to a prophecy, even when it is made the vehicle of
genuine prediction. In estimating the grades of inspira-
tion the Jews placed highest the inward illumination of
the Spirit, the Reason, and the Understanding; next
to this they placed dreams and visions ; and lowest
of all they placed the accidental auguries derived from
the Bath Qdl. An apocalypse may be of priceless
value, like the Revelation of St. John ; it may, like the
Book of Daniel, abound in the noblest and most thrilling
lessons ; but in intrinsic dignity and worth it is always
placed by the instinct and conscience of mankind on a
lower grade than such outpourings of Divine teachings
as breathe and burn through the pages of a David and
an Isaiah.
6. The Moral Element.
Lastl}', among these salient phenomena of the Book
of Daniel we are compelled to notice the absence of
the predominantly moral element from its prophetic
portion. The author does not write in the tone of a
preacher of repentance, or of one whose immediate
GENERAL SURVEY 35
object it is to ameliorate the moral and spiritual con-
dition of his people. His aims were different.^ The
older prophets were the ministers of dispensations
between the Law and the Gospel. They were, in the
beautiful language of Herder, —
" Die Saitenspiel in Gottes machtigen Handen."
Doctrine, worship, and consolation were their proper
sphere. They were " oralo}'es Legis, advocati patrice."
In them prediction is wholly subordinate to moral warn-
ing and instruction. They denounce, they inspire : they
smite to the dust with terrible invective ; they uplift
once more into glowing hope. The announcement of
events yet future is the smallest part of the prophet's
office, and rather its sign than its substance. The
highest mission of an Amos or an Isaiah is not to be a
prognosticator, but to be a religious teacher. He makes
his appeals to the conscience, not to the imagination —
to the spirit, not to the sense. He deals with eternal
. principles, and is almost wholly indifferent to chrono-
logical verifications. To awaken the death-like slumber
of sin, to fan the dying embers of faithfulness, to smite
down the selfish oppressions of wealth and power, to
startle the sensual apathy of greed, were the ordinary
and the noblest aims of the greater and the minor
prophets. It was their task far rather io fortJi-lell i\\^.n
to fore-tell; and if they announce, in general outline
and uncertain perspective, things which shall be here-
after, it is only in subordination to high ethical pur-
poses, or profound spiritual lessons. So it is also in
the Revelation of St. John. But in the " prophetic "
' On this subject see Kuenen, The Prophets, iii. 95 ff. ; Davison, On
Prophecy, pp. 34-67 ; Herder, Hcbr. Poesie, ii. 64 ; De Wette, Christl.
Siiteiilehre, ii. i.
36 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
part of Daniel it is difficult for the keenest imagination
to discern any deep moral, or any special doctrinal
significance, in all the details of the obscure wars
and petty diplomacy of the kings of the North and
South.
In point of fact the Book of Daniel, even as an
apocalypse, suffers severely by comparison with that
latest canonical Apocalypse of the Beloved Disciple
which it largely influenced. It is strange that Luther,
who spoke so slightingly of the Revelation of St. John,
should have placed the Book of Daniel so high in his
estimation. It is indeed a noble book, full of glorious
lessons. Yet surely it has but little of the sublime
and mysterious beauty, Httle of the heart-shaking pathos,
little of the tender sweetness of consolatory power,
which fill the closing book of the New Testament. Its
imagery is far less exalted, its hope of immortality far
less distinct and unquenchable. Yet the Book of
Daniel, while it is one of the earliest, still remains one
of the greatest specimens of this form of sacred litera-
ture. It inaugurated the new epoch of " apocalyptic "
which in later days was usually pseudepigraphic, and
sheltered itself under the names of Enoch, Noah, Moses,
Ezra, and even the heathen Sibyls. These apocalypses
are of very unequal value. " Some," as Kuenen says,
" stand comparatively high ; others are far below
mediocrity." But the genus to which they belong has
its own peculiar defect. They are works of art : they
are not spontaneous ; they smell of the lamp. A fruit-
less and an unpractical peering into the future was
encouraged by these writings, and became predominant
in some Jewish circles. But the Book of Daniel is
incomparably superior in every possible respect to
Baruch, or the Book of Enoch, or the Second Book of
GENERAL SURVEY 37
Esdras ; and if we place it for a moment by the side
of such books as those contained in the Codex Pseud-
epigraphus of Fabricius, its high worth and Canonical
authority are vindicated with extraordinary force. How
lofty and enduring are the lessons to be learnt alike
from its historic and predictive sections we shall have
abundant opportunities of seeing in the following pages.
So far from undervaluing its teaching, I have alwa3's
been strongly drawn to this Book of Scripture. It has
never made the least difference in my reverent accept-
ance of it that I have, for many years, been convinced
that it cannot be regarded as literal history or ancient
prediction. Reading it as one of the noblest specimens
of the Jewish Haggada or moral Ethopoeia, I find it full
of instruction in righteousness; and rich in examples of
hfe. That Daniel was a real person, that he lived in
the days of the Exile, and that his life was distinguished
by the splendour of its faithfulness I hold to be entirely
possible. When we regard the stories here related of
him as moral legends, possibly based on a groundwork
of real tradition, we read the Book with a full sense of
its value, and feel the power of the lessons which it
was designed to teach, without being perplexed by its
apparent improbabilities, or worried by its immense
historic and other difficulties.
The Book is in all respects unique, a writing sui
generis ; for the many imitations to which it led are but
imitations. But, as the Jewish writer Dr. Joel truly
says, the unveiling of the secret as to the real lateness
of its date and origin, so far from causing any loss in
its beauty and interest, enhance both in a remarkable
degree. It is thus seen to be the work of a brave and
gifted anonymous author about B.C. 167, who brought
his piety and his patriotism to bear on the troubled
38 ' THE BOOK OF DANIEL
fortunes of his people at an epoch in which such piety
and patriotism were of priceless value. We have in
its later sections no voice of enigmatic prediction, fore-
telling the minutest complications of a distant secular
future, but mainly the review of contemporary events
by a wise and an earnest writer whose faith and hope
remained unquenchable in the deepest night of persecu-
tion and apostasy.^ Many passages of the Book are
dark, and will remain dark, owing partly perhaps to
corruptions and uncertainties of the text, and partly to
imitation of a style which had become archaic, as well
as to the peculiarities of the apocalyptic form. But the
general idea of the Book has now been thoroughly
elucidated, and the interpretation of it in the following
pages is accepted by the great majority of earnest and
faithful students of the Scriptures.
' Joel, Notiseit, p. 7.
CHAPTER III
PECULIARITIES OF THE HISTORIC SECTION
NO one can have studied the Book of Daniel with-
out seeing that, alike in the character of its
miracles and the minuteness of its supposed predictions,
it makes a more stupendous and a less substantiated
claim upon our credence than any other book of the
Bible, and a claim wholly different in character. It
has over and over again been asserted by the uncharit-
ableness of a merely traditional orthodoxy that inability
to accept the historic verity and genuineness of the
Book arises from secret faithlessness, and antagonism
to the admission of the supernatural. No competent
scholar will think it needful to refute such calumnies.
It suffices us to know before God that we are actuated
simply by the love of truth, by the abhorrence of any-
thing which in us would be a pusillanimous spirit of
falsity. We have too deep a belief in the God of the
Amen, the God of eternal and essential verity, to offer
to Him " the unclean sacrifice of a lie." An error is
not sublimated into a truth even when that lie has
acquired a quasi-consecration, from its supposed desir-
ability for purposes of orthodox controversy, or from
its innocent acceptance by generations of Jewish and
Christian Churchmen through long ages of uncritical
ignorance. Scholars, if they be Christians at all, can
have no possible a-priori objection to belief in the
39
40 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
supernatural. If they believe, for instance, in the
Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they
believe in the most mysterious and unsurpassable of all
miracles, and beside that miracle all minor questions of
God's power or willingness to manifest His immediate
intervention in the affairs of men sink at once into
absolute insignificance.
But our belief in the Incarnation, and in the miracles
of Christ, rests on evidence which, after repeated
examination, is to us overwhelming. Apart from all
questions of personal verification, or the Inward Witness
of the Spirit, we can show that this evidence is sup-
ported, not only by the existing records, but by myriads
of external and independent testimonies. The very
same Spirit which makes men believe where the demon-
stration is decisive, compels them to refuse belief to the
literal verity of unique miracles and unique predic-
tions which come before them w'ithout any convincing
evidence. The narratives and visions of this Book
present difficulties on every page. They were in all
probability never intended for anything but what they
are — Haggadoth, which, like the parables of Christ,
convey their own lessons without depending on the
necessity for accordance with historic fact.
Had it been any part of the Divine will that we
should accept these stories as pure history, and these
visions as predictions of events which were not to take
place till centuries afterwards, %ve should have been
provided with some aids to such belief. On the con-
trary, in whatever light we examine the Book of Daniel,
the evidence hi its favour is weak, dubious, hypothetical,
and a priori; while the evidence against it acquires
increased intensity with every fresh aspect in which it
is examined. The Book which would make the most
PECULIARITIES OF THE HISTORIC SECTION 4I
extraordinary demands upon our credulity if it were
meant for history, is the very Book of which the
genuineness and authenticity are decisively discredited
by every fresh discovery and by each new examination.
There is scarcely one learned European scholar by
whom they are maintained, except with such conces-
sions to the Higher Criticism as practically involve the
abandonment of all that is essential in the traditional
theory.
And we have come to a time when it will not avail
to take refuge in such transferences of the discussions
in alteram materiam, and such purely vulgar appeals
ad invidiam, as are involved in saying, " Then the Book
must be a forgery," and ** an imposture," and " a gross
lie." To assert that "to give up the Book of Daniel
is to betray the cause of Christianity," ^ is a coarse and
* Thus Dr. Pusey says : "The Book of Daniel is especially fitted
to be a battle-field between faith and unbelief. It admits of no half-
measures. It is either Divine or an imposture. To write any book
under the name of another, and to give it out to be his, is, in any case,
a forgery dishonest in itself, and destructive of all trustworthiness.
But the case of the Book of Daniel, if it were not his, would go far
beyond even this. The writer, were Ite not Daniel, must have lied on
a frightful scale. In a word, the whole Book would be one lie in the
Name of God." Few would venture to use such language in these
daj's. It is alwaj's a perilous style to adopt, but now it has become
suicidal. It is founded on an immense and inexcusable anachronism.
It avails itself of an utterly false misuse of the words " faith " and
"unbelief," by which "faith" becomes a mere synonym for "that
which I esteem orthodox," or that which has been the current opinion
in ages of ignorance. Much truer faith may be shown by accepting
arguments founded on unbiassed evidence than by rejecting them.
And what can be more foolish than to base the great truths of the
Christian religion on special pleadings which have now come to wear
the aspect of ingenious sophistries, such as would not be allowed to
have the smallest validity in any ordinary question of literary or
historic evidence ? Hengstenberg, like Pusey, says in his violent
ecclesiastical tone of autocratic infallibility that the interpretation of
42 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
dangerous misuse of the weapons of controversy. Such
talk may still have been excusable even in the days of
Dr. Puscy (with whom it was habitual) ; it is no longer
excusable now. Now it can only prove the uncharit-
ableness of the apologist, and the impotence of a
defeated cause. Yet even this abandonment of the
sphere of honourable argument is only one degree more
painful than the tortuous subterfuges and wild asser-
tions to which such apologists as Hengstenberg, Keil,
and their followers were long compelled to have
recourse. Anything can be proved about anything if
we call to our aid indefinite suppositions of errors
of transcription, interpolations, transpositions, extra-
ordinary silences, still more extraordinary methods of
presenting events, and (in general) the unconsciously
disingenuous resourcefulness of traditional harmonics.
To maintain that the Book of Daniel, as it now stands,
was written by Daniel in the days of the Exile is to
cherish a belief which can only, at the utmost, be
extremely uncertain, and which must be maintained in
defiance of masses of opposing evidence. There can
be little intrinsic value in a determination to believe
historical and literary assumptions which can no longer
be maintained except by preferring the flimsiest hypo-
theses to the most certain facts.
My own conviction has long been that in these
the Book by most eminent modern critics "will remain false so long
as the word of Christ is true — that is, for ever." This is to make " the
word of Christ" the equivalent of a mere theological blindness and
prejudice ! Assertions which are utterly baseless can only be met by
assertions based on science and the love of truth. Thus when Rup-
precht says that " the modern criticism of the Book of Daniel is
unchristian, immoral, and unscientific," we can only reply with disdain,
Novimns istas \7]kv6ovs. In the present day they are mere bluster
of impotent odium theologicunt.
PECULIARITIES OF THE HISTORIC SECTION 43
Haggadoth, in which Jewish literature dehghted in the
prae-Christian era, and which continued to be written
even till the Middle Ages, there was not the least
pretence or desire to deceive at all. I believe them
to have been put forth as moral legends — as avowed
fiction nobly used for the purposes of religious teaching
and encouragement. In ages of ignorance, in which
no such thing as literary criticism existed, a popular
Haggada might soon come to be regarded as historical,
just as the Homeric lays were among the Greeks, or
just as Defoe's story of the Plague of London was
taken for literal history by many readers even in the
seventeenth century.
Ingenious attempts have been made to show that
the author of this Book evinces an intimate familiarity
with the circumstances of the Babylonian rehgion,
society, and history. In many cases this is the reverse
of the fact. The instances adduced in favour of any
knowledge except of the most general description are
entirely delusive. It is frivolous to maintain, with
Lenormant, tha't an exceptional acquaintance with
Babylonian custom was required to describe Nebu-
chadrezzar as consulting diviners for the interpretation
of a dream ! To say nothing of the fact that a similar
custom has prevailed in all nations and all ages from
the days of Samuel to those of Lobengula, the writer
had the prototype of Pharaoh before him, and has
evidentl}' been influenced by the story of Joseph.^
Again, so far from showing surprising acquaintance
with the organisation of the caste -of Babylonian
diviners, the writer has made a mistake in their very
name, as well as in the statement that a faithful Jew,
' Gen. xli.
44 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
like Daniel, was made the chief of their college ! ^ Nor,
again, was there anything so unusual in the presence
of women at feasts — also recognised in the Haggada
of Esther — as to render this a sign of extraordinary
information. Once more, is it not futile to adduce
the allusion to punishment by burning alive as a proof
of insight into Bab3^1onian peculiarities ? This punish-
ment had already been mentioned by Jeremiah in the
case of Nebuchadrezzar. " Then shall be taken up
a curse by all the captivity of Judah which are in
Babylon, saying, The Lord make thee like Zedekiah
and like Ahab " (two false prophets), " whom the King
of Babylon roasted in the firey " Moreover, it occurs
in the Jewish traditions which described a miraculous
escape of exactly the same character in the legend of
Abraham. He, too, had been supernaturally rescued
from the burning fiery furnace of Nimrod, to which
he had been consigned because he refused to worship
idols in Ur of the Chaldees.^
When the instances mainly relied upon prove to be
so evidentially valueless, it would be waste of time to
follow Professor Fuller through the less important and
more imaginary proofs of accuracy which his industry
has amassed. Meanwhile the feeblest reasoner will
see that while a writer may easily be accurate in
general facts, and even in details, respecting an age
' See Lenormant, La Divination, p. 219.
^ Jer. xxix. 22. The tenth verse of this very chapter is referred to
in Dan. ix. 2. The custom continued in the East centuries afterwards.
"And if it was known to a Roman writer (Quintus Curtius, v. i) in
the days of Vespasian, why " (Mr. Bevan pertinently asks) "should
it not have been known to a Palestinian writer who lived centuries
earlier?" (A. A. Bevan, Short Comtiienfary, p. 22).
' Avodah-Zarah, f. 3, i ; Sanhedrin, f. 93, I ; Pcsac'iiiit, i. llS, I ;
Eiruvhi, f. 53, i.
PECULIARITIES OF THE HISTORIC SECTION 45
long previous to that in which he wrote, the existence
of violent errors as to matters with which a con-
temporary must have been familiar at once refutes all
pretence of historic authenticity in a book professing
to have been written by an author in the days and
country which he describes.
Now such mistakes there seem to be, and not a few
of them, in the pages of the Book of Daniel. One or
two of them can perhaps be explained away by pro-
cesses which would amply suffice to show that* " 3'es "
means " no," or that " black " is a description of "white " ;
but each repetition of such processes leaves us more and
more incredulous. If errors be treated as corruptions
of the text, or as later interpolations, such arbitrary
methods of treating the Book are practically an admis-
sion that, as it stands, it cannot be regarded as historical.
I. We are, for instance, met by what seems to be a
remarkable error in the very first verse of the Book,
which tells us that "/w the third year of Jehoiakim,
King of Judoh, -CZime Nebuchadnezzar" — as in later
days he was incorrectly called — " King of Bablycn,
unto Jerusalem, and besieged it."
It is easy to trace whence the error sprang. Its
source lies in a book which is the latest in the whole
Canon, and in many details difficult to reconcile with
the Book of Kings — a book of which the Hebrew
resembles that of Daniel — the Book of Chronicles. In
2 Chron. xxxvi. 6 we are told that Nebuchadnezzar
came up against Jehoiakim, and ** bound him in fetters
to carry him to Bab3don " ; and also — to which the
author of Daniel directly refers — that he carried off some
of the vessels of the House of God, to put them in the
treasure-house of his god. In this passage it is not
said that this occurred " in the third year of Jehoiakim,"
46 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
who reigned eleven years ; but in 2 Kings xxiv. i we
are told that " in his days Nebuchadnezzar came up,
and Jehoiakim became his servanl three years." The
passage in Daniel looks like a confused reminiscence
of the "three years" with "the third year of Jehoiakim."
The elder and better authority (the Book of Kings)
is silent about- any deportation having taken place in
the reign of Jehoiakim, and so is the contemporary
Prophet Jeremiah. But in any case it seems impossible
that it should have taken place so early as the third
year of Jehoiakim, for at that time he was a simple
vassal of the King of Egypt. If this deportation took
place in the reign of Jehoiakim, it would certainly be
singular that Jeremiah, in enumerating three others,
in the seventh, eighteenth, and twenty-third year of
Nebuchadrezzar,^ should make no allusion to it. But it
is hard to see how it could have taken place before Egygt_
had been defeated in the Battle of CarchemishjX and
that was not till b.c. 559^ the fourth year of Jehoiakim.^
Not only does Jeremiah make no mention of so
remarkable a deportation as this, which as the earliest
would have caused the deepest anguish, but, in the
fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. xxxvi, i), he writes a
roll to threaten evils which are still future, and in the
ffth year proclaims a fast in the hope that the imminent
peril may even yet be averted (Jer. xxxvi. 6-10). It
is only after the violent obstinacy of the king that
the destructive advance of Nebuchadrezzar is finally
prophesied (Jer. xxxvi. 29) as something which has
not yet occurred.^
' Jer. lii. 28-30. These were in the reign of Jehoiachin.
^ Jer. xlvi. 2 : comp. Jer. xxv. The passage of Berossus, quoted in
Jos., ^m/^.,X. xi. I, is not trustworthy, and does not remove the difficulty.
^ The attempts of Kcil and Puscy to get over tlic difficult3', if they
PECULIARITIES OF THE HISTORIC SECTION 47
II. Nor are the names in this first chapter free
from difficulty. Daniel is called Belteshazzar, and the
remark of the King of Babylon — " whose name was
Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god^^ — certainly
suggests that the first syllable is (as the Massorets
assume) connected with the god Bel. But the name
has nothing to do with Bel, No contemporary could
have fallen into such an error ; ^ still less a king who
spoke Babylonian. Shadrach may be Shiidur-aku,
" command of Aku," the moon-god ; but Meshach is
inexplicable ; and Abed-nego is a strange corruption
for the obvious and common Abed-nebo, " servant of
Nebo." Such a corruption could hardly have arisen
till Nebo was practically forgotten. And what is the
meaning of "the Melzar" (Dan. i. ii)? The A.V.
takes it to be a proper name ; the R.V. renders it
" the steward." But the title is unique and obscure.^
Nor can anything be made of the name of Ashpenaz,
the prince of the eunuchs, v»'hom, in one manuscript,
the LXX. call Abiesdri.=^
III. Similar difficulties and uncertainties meet us at
every step. Thus, in the second chapter (ii. i), the
dream of Nebuchadrezzar is fixed in the second year
were valid, would reduce Scripture to a hopeless riddle. The reader
will see all the latest efforts in this direction in the Speaker's
Cominenta)y and the work of Fabre d'Envieu. Even such "orthodox"
writers as Dorner, Delitzsch, and Gess, not to mention hosts of
other great critics, have long seen the desperate impossibility of
these arguments.
' Balatsu-iitsur, "protect his life." The root baldtti, "life," is common
in Assyrian names. The mistake comes from the wrong vocalisation
adopted by the Massorets (Meinhold, Bcitriige, p. 27).
'^ Schrader dubiously connects it with ntatsisara, "guardian."
* Lenormant, p. 182, regards it as a corruption of Ashbenazar, " the
goddess has pruned the seed " (??) ; but assumed corruptions of the
text are an uncertain expedient.
48 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
of his reign. This does not seem to be in accord
with i. 3, 1 8, which says that Daniel and his three com-
panions were kept under the care of the prince of the
eunuchs for three j^ears. Nothing, of course, is easier
than to invent harmonistic liypotlieses, such as that of
Rashi, that " the second year of the reign of Nebuchad-
rezzar has the wholly different meaning of " the second
year after the destruction of the Temple " ; or as that of
Hengstenberg, followed by many modern apologists,
that Nebuchadrezzar had previously been associated in
the kingdom with Nabopolassar, and that this was the
second year of his independent reign. Or, again, we
may, with Ewald, read " the twelfth year." But by
these methods we are not taking the Book as it stands,
but are supposing it to be a network of textual corrup-
tions and conjectural combinations.
IV. In ii. 2 the king summons four classes of hiero-
phants to disclose his dream and its interpretation.
They are the magicians (Chartummini), the enchanters
(Ashshaphiiii), the sorcerers {Mcchashsh^ phim), and the
Chaldeans (Kasdim)} The Chartummim occur in Gen.
xli. 8 (which seems to be in the writer's mind) ; and
the Mechashsh'phim occur in Exod. vii. ii, xxii. i8;
but the mention of Kasdim, " Chaldeans," is, so far
as we know, an immense anachronism. In much later
ages the name was used, as it was among the Roman
writers, for wandering astrologers and quacks.^ But
this degenerate sense of the word was, so far as we
can judge, wholly unknown to the age of Daniel. It
never once occurs in this sense on any of the monu-
ments. Unknown to the Ass^Tian-Babylonian language,
' On these see Rob. Smith, Cauibr. Journ. of PhiloL, No. 27, p. 125.
■•^ Juv., Sat., X. 96 : " Cum grege Chaldaeo " ; Val. Max., iii. i ; Cic, De
Div., i. I, etc.
PECULIARITIES OF THE HISTORIC SECTION 49
and onl}' acquired long after the end of the Babylonian
Empire, such a usage of the word is, as Schrader says,
"an indication of the post-exilic composition of the
Book." ^ In the days of Daniel " Chaldeans " had no
meaning resembling that of " magicians " or " astro-
logers." In every other writer of the Old Testament,
and in all contemporary records, Kasdim simply means
the Chaldean nation, and never a learned caste.^ This
single circumstance has decisive weight in proving the
late age of the Book of Daniel.
V. Again, we find \\\ ii. 14, "Arioch, the chief of the
executioners." Schrader precariously derives the name
from Eri-aku, " servant of the moon-god " ; but, how-
ever that may be, we already find the name as that of
a king Ellasar in Gen. xiv. i, and we find it again
for a king of the Elymseans in Judith i. 6. In ver. 16
Daniel " went in and desired of the king " a little
respite; but in ver. 25 Arioch tells the king, as though
it were a sudden discovery of his own, " 1 have found
a man of the captives of Judah, that will make known
unto the king the interpretation," This was a sur-
prising form of introduction, after we have been told
that the king himself had, by personal examination,
found that Daniel and his young companions were
" ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers
that were in all his realms It seems, however, as if
each of these chapters was intended to be recited as
a separate Haggada.
VI. In ii. 46, after the interpretation of the dream,
*Uhe King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and
worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer
' Keiliiischr., p. 429; Meiiihold, p. 28.
^ Isa. xxiii. 13 ; Jer. xxv. 12; Ezek. xii. 13; Hab. i. 6.
50 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
an oblation and sweet odoni's unto him.^^ This is another
of the immense surprises of the Book. It is exactly the
kind of incident in which the haughty theocratic senti-
ment of the Jews found dcHght, and we find a similar
spirit in the many Talmudic inventions in which Roman
emperors, or other potentates, are represented as pay-
ing extravagant adulation to Rabbinic sages. There
is (as we shall see) a similar stor}^ narrated by Josephus
of Alexander the Great prostrating himself before the
high priest Jaddua, but it has long been relegated to
the realm of fable as an outcome of Jewish self-esteem.^
It is probably meant as a concrete illustration of the
glowing promises of Isaiah, that ** kings and queens
shall bow down to thee with their faces tovv'ards the
earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet " ; ^ and " the
sons of them that despised thee shall bow themselves
down at the soles of thy feet." ^
VII. We further ask in astonishment whether Daniel
could have accepted without indignant protest the offer-
ing of " an oblation and sweet odours." To say that
they were only offered to God in the person of Daniel
is the idle pretence of all idolatry. They are expressly
said to be offered ** to Daniel." A Herod could accept
blasphemous adulations;* but a Paul and a Barnabas
deprecate such devotions with intense disapproval.^
VIII. In ii. 48 Nebuchadrezzar appoints Daniel, as
a reward for his wisdom, to rule over the whole province
of Babylon, and to be Rab-signin, " chief ruler," and
to be over all the wise men {Khakamini) of Babylon.
Lenormant treats this statement as an interpolation,
because he regards it as ^^ evidently impossible." We
' Jos., Antt., XI. viii. 5. " Acts xii. 22, 23.
"^ Isa, xlix. 23. '" Acts xiv. II, 12, xxviii. 6.
' Isa. Ix. 14.
PECULIARITIES OF THE HISTORIC SECTION 51
know that in the Babylonian priesthood, and especially
among the sacred caste, there was a passionate religious
intolerance. It is inconceivable that they should have
accepted as their religious superior a monotheist who
was the avowed and uncompromising enemy to their
whole system of idolatry. It is equally inconceivable
that Daniel should have accepted the position of a
hierophant in a polytheistic cult. In the next three
chapters there is no allusion to Daniel's tenure of these
strange and exalted offices, either civil or religious.^
IX. The third chapter contains another story, told
in a style of wonderful stateliness and splendour, and
full of glorious lessons ; but here again we encounter
linguistic and other difficulties. Thus in iii. 2, though
" all the rulers of the provinces " and officers of all
ranks are summoned to the dedication of Nebuchad-
rezzar's colossus, there is not an allusion to Daniel
throughout the chapter. Four of the names of the
officers in iii. 2, 3, appear, to our surprise, to be
Persian ; - and, of the six musical instruments, three —
the lute, psaltery, and bagpipe ^ — have obvious Greek
names, two of which (as already stated) are of late
origin, while another, the sab'ka, resembles the Greek
aafi^vKT], but may have come to the Greeks from the
Aramaeans.* The incidents of the chapter are such as
find no analogy throughout the Old or New Testament,
but exactly resemble those of Jewish moralising fiction,
of which they furnish the most perfect specimen. It
' See Jer. xxxix. 3. And if he held this position, how could he
be absent in chap. iii. ?
- Namely, the words for "satraps," "governors," "counsellors," and
"judges," as well as the courtiers in iii. 24. Bleek thinks that to
enhance the stateliness of the occasion the writer introduced as many
official names as he knew.
' Supra, p. 23. * Athen., Deipnos., iv. 175.
52 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
is exactly the kind of concrete comment which a Jewish
writer of piety and genius, for the encouragement of
his afflicted people, might have based upon such a
passage as Isa. xliii. 2, 3 : " When thou walkest through
the fire, thou shalt not be burned ; neither shall the
flame kindle upon thee. For I am the Lord thy God,
the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour." Nebuchadrezzar's
decree, "That exery people, nation, and latiguage, which
speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abed-nego, shall be ad in pieces, and their
houses shall be made a dunghill,''^ can only be paralleled
out of the later Jewish literature.^
X. In chap. iv. we have another monotheistic decree
of the King of Babylon, announcing to '* all people,
nations, and languages" what ''the high God hath
wrought towards me." It gives us a vision which
recalls Ezek. xxxi. 3-18, and may possibly have been
suggested by that fine chapter.^ The language varies
between the third and the first person. In iv. 13
Nebuchadrezzar speaks of " a watcher and a holy
one." This is the first appearance in Jewish literature
of the word '/>, " watcher," which is so common in the
Book of Enoch. ^ In ver. 26 the expression " after
thou shalt have known that tJie heavens do rule " is
one which has no analogue in the Old Testament,
though exceedingly common in the superstitious
periphrases of the later Jewish literature. As to the
' The Persian titles in iii. 24 alone suffice to indicate that this
could not be Nebuchadrezzar's actual decree. See further, Meinhold,
pp. 30, 31. We are evidently dealing with a writer who introduces
many Persian words, with no consciousness that they could not have
been used by Babylonian kings.
'^ The writer of Daniel was evidently acquainted with the Book
of Ezekiel. See Delitzsch in Herzog, s.v. "Daniel," and Driver,
p. 476 * See iv. 16, 25-30.
PECULIARITIES OF THE HISTORIC SECTION 53
story of the strange lycanthropy with which Nebu-
chadrezzar was afflicted, though it receives nothing
but the faintest shadow of support from any historic
record, it may be based on some fact preserved by
tradition. It is probably meant to reflect on the mad
ways of Antiochus. The general phrase of Berossus,
which tells us that Nebuchadrezzar " fell into a sick-
ness and died," ^ has been pressed into an historical
verification of this narrative 1 But the phrase might
have been equally well used in the most ordinary
case,^ which shows what fancies have been adduced
to prove that we are here dealing with history. The
fragment of Abydenus in his Assyriaca, preserved by
Eusebius,^ shows that there was some story about
Nebuchadrezzar having uttered remarkable words upon
his palace-roof. The announcement of a coming
irrevocable calamity to the kingdom from a Persian
mule, " the son of a Median woman," and the wish
that ^* the alien conqueror" might be driven "through
the desert where wild beasts seek their food, and
birds fly hither and thither," has, however, very little
to do with the story of Nebuchadrezzar's madness.
Abydenus says that, " when he had thus prophesied,
he suddenly vanished " ; and he adds nothing about
any restoration to health or to his kingdom. All that
' Preserved by Jos. : comp. Ap., I. 20.
- The phrase is common enough : e.g., in Jos., Aritt., X. xi. I (comp.
c. Ap., I. 19); and a similar phrase, eixweaihv etj appuariav, is used of
A)ttiochtis Epiphaiies in i Mace. vL 8.
^ Prcep. Ev., ix. 41. Schrader {K. A. T., ii. 432) thinks that
Berossus and the Book of Daniel may both point to the same
tradition; but the Chaldee tradition quoted by the late writer
Abydenus errs likewise in only recognising two Bab3'lonish kings
instead of four, exclusive of Belshazzar. See, too, Schrader, Jaltrb.
fur P rot. Tl.eoi, 1 88 1, p. 618.
54 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
can be said is that there was current among the
Babylonian Jews some popular legend of which the
writer of the Book of Daniel availed himself for the
purpose of his edifying Midrash.
XI. When we reach the fifth chapter, we are faced by
a new king, Belshazzar, who is somewhat emphatically
called the son of Nebuchadrezzar.^
History knows of no such king.^ The prince of
whom it docs know was never king, and was a son,
not of Nebuchadrezzar, but of the usurper Nabunaid ;
and between Nebuchadrezzar and Nabunaid there were
three other kings. ^
There was a Belshazzar — Bel-sar-iitsur, " Bel pro-
tect the prince " — and we possess a clay cylinder of
his father Nabunaid, the last king of Babylon, praying
the moon-god that " my son, the offspring of my heart,
might honour his godhead, and not give himself to
sin."* But if we follow Herodotus, this Belshazzar
never came to the throne ; and according to Berossus
he was conquered in Borsippa. Xenophon, indeed,
speaks of "an impious king" as being slain in
Babylon ; but this is only in an avowed romance
' Dan. V. II. The emphasis seems to show that "son" is really
meant — not grandson. This is a little strange, for Jeremiah (xxvii. 7)
had said that the nations should serve Nebuchadrezzar, " and his son,
and his so>fs son " ; and in no case was Belshazzar Nebuchadrezzar's
son's son, for his father Nabunaid was an usurping son of a Rab-mag.
^ Schrader, p. 434 ff. ; and in Riehm, Handwortcrb., ii. 163 ; Pinches,
in Smith's Bibl. Diet, i. 388, 2nd edn. The contraction into Belshazzar
from Bel-sar-ntsur seems to show a late date.
^ That the author of Daniel should have fallen into these errors
is the more remarkable because Evil-merodach is mentioned in
2 Kings XXV. 27 ; and Jeremiah in his round number of seventy
years includes three generations (Jer. xxvii. 7)- Herodotus and
Abydenus made the same mistake. See Kamphausen, pp. 30, 31.
' Herod., i. 191. Sec Ravvlinson, Herod., i. 434.
PECULIARITIES OF THE HISTORIC SECTION 55
which has not the smallest historic validit}'.^ Schracler
conjectures that Nabunaid may have gone to take the
field against Cyrus (who conquered and pardoned
him, and allowed him to end his days as governor
of Karamania), and that Belshazzar may have been
killed in Babylon. These are mere hypotheses ; as
are those of Josephus," who identifies Belshazzar with
Nabunaid (whom he calls Naboandelon) ; and of Babelon,
who tries to make him the same as Maruduk-shar-utsur
(as though Bel was the same as Maruduk), which is
impossible, as this king reigned before Nabunaid. No
contemporary writer could have fallen into the error
either of calling Belshazzar " king " ; or of insisting
on his being " the son " of Nebuchadrezzar ; ^ or of
representing him as Nebuchadrezzar's successor. Nebu-
chadrezzar was succeeded by —
Evil-merodach . . circ. B.C. 561 (Avil-marduk).*
Nergal-sharezer , . . . „ 559 (Nergal-sar-utsur).
Lakhabbashi-marudu I - / • r ^\
(Laborosoarchod) \ ' " 55. (an infant).
Nabunaid 554-
Nabunaid reigned till about B.C. 538, when Babylon
was taken by Cyrus.
The conduct of Belshazzar in the great feast of this
chapter is probably meant as an allusive contrast to
the revels and impieties of Antiochus Epiphanes, espe-
cially in his infamous festival at the grove of Daphne.
XII. "That night," we are told, "Belshazzar, the
Chaldean king, was slain." It has always been sup-
' Xen., Cyrop., VII. v. 3.
- Antt., X. xi. 2. In c. Ap., I. 20, he calls him Nabonnedus.
' This is now supposed to mean " grandson by marriage," by
inventing the hypothesis that Nabunaid married a daughter of
Nebuchadrezzar. But this does not accord with Dan. v, 2, 11, 22;
and so in Baruoli i. Ii, 12. * 2 Kings xxv. 27.
56 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
posed that this was an incident of the capture of
Bab^'lon by assault, in accordance with the story of
Herodotus, repeated by so n:;any subsequent writers.
But on this point the inscriptions of Cyrus have
revolutionised our knowledge. " There was no siege
and capture of Babylon ; the capital of the Babylonian
Empire opened its gates to the general of Cyrus.
Gobr^'as and his soldiers entered the city without
fighting, and the daily services in the great temple of
Bcl-merodach suffered no interruption. Three months
later C^rus himself arrived, and made his peaceful
entry into the new capital of his empire. We gather
from the contract-tablets that even the ordinary business
of the place had not been affected by the war. The
siege and capture of Babylon by Cyrus is really a
reflection into the past of the actual sieges undergone by
the city in the reigns of Darius, son of Hystaspes and
Xerxes. It is clear, then, that the editor of the fifth
chapter of the Book of Daniel could have been as little
a contemporary of the events he professes to record as
Herodotus. For both alike, the true history of the
Babylonian Empire has been overclouded and fore-
shortened by the lapse of time. The three kings who
reigned between Nebuchadrezzar and Nabunaid have
been forgotten, and the last king of the Babylonian
Empire has become the son of its founder." ^
Snatching at the merest straws, those who try to
vindicate the accuracy of the writer — although he makes
Belshazzar a king, which he never was ; and the son of
Nebuchadrezzar, which is not the case ; or his grand-
son, of which there is no tittle of evidence ; and his
successor, whereas four kings intervened ; — think that
' Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Momtmciits, p. 527.
PECULIARITIES OF THE HISTORIC SECTION 57
they improve the case by urging that Daniel was made
" the third ruler in the kingdom " — Nabunaid being the
first, and Belshazzar being the second 1 Unhappily
for their very precarious hypothesis, the translation
"third ruler" appears to be entirely untenable. It
means " one of a board of three."
XIII. In the sixth chapter we are again met by
difficulty after difficulty.
Who, for instance, was Darius the Mede ? We are
told (v. 30, 31) that, on the night of his impious
banquet, *' Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans " was
slain, " and Darius the Median took the kingdom,
being about threescore and two years old." We are
also told that Daniel " prospered in the reign of Darius,
and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian " (vi. 28). But
this Darius is not even noticed elsewhere. Cyrus was
the conqueror of Babylon, and between B.C. 538-536
there is no room or possibility for a Median ruler.
The inference which we should naturally draw from
these statements in the Book of Daniel, and which all
readers have drawn, was that Babylon had been con-
quered by the Medes, and that only after the death of
a Median king did Cyrus the Persian succeed.
But historic monuments and records entirely over-
throw this supposition. Cyrus was the king of Babylon
from the day that his troops entered it without a blow.
He had conquered the Medes and suppressed their
royalty. " The numerous contract-tables of the ordi-
nary daily business transactions of Babylon, dated as
they are month by month, and almost day by day from
the reign of Nebuchadrezzar to that of Xerxes, prove
that between Nabonidus and Cyrus there was no inter-
mediate rulerP The contemporary scribes and mer-
chants of Babylon knew nothing of any King Belshazzar,
58 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
and they knew even less of any King Darius the Mede.
No contemporary writer could possibly have fallen into
such an error. ^
And against this obvious conclusion, of what possible
avail is it for Hengstenberg to quote a late Greek
lexicographer {Harpocration, a.d. 170?), who says that
the coin " a daric " was named after a Darius earlier
than the father of Xerxes ? — or for others to identify
this shadowy Darius the Mede with Astyages ? ^ — or
with Cyaxares II. in the romance of Xenophon ? ^ — or
to say that Darius the Mede is Gobryas (Ugbaru) of
Gutium * — a Persian, and not a king at all — who under
no circumstances could have been called " the king " by
a contemporary (vi. 12, ix. i), and whom, apparently
for three months only, Cyrus made governor of Baby-
' I need not enter here upon the confusion of the Manda with the
Medes, on which see Sayce, Higher Criticism and Monuments, p. 519 ff.
^ Winer, Reahvorterb., s.v. " Darius."
^ So Bertholdt, Von Lengerke, Auberlen. It is decidedly rejected
by Schrader (Riehm, Handvoorterb., i. 259). Even Cicero said, " Cyrus
ille a Xenophonte non ad historias fidem scriptus est" {Ad Quint. Fratr.,
Ep. i. 3). Niebuhr caHed the Cyropcedia '■' em&n elenden und lappi-
schen Roman " {Alt. Gesch., i. 116). He classes it with TeWmaqiie ot
Rasselas. Xenophon was probably the ultimate authority for the
statement of Josephus {Antt., X. xi. 4), which has no weight. Hero-
dotus and Ktcsias know nothing of the existence of any Cyaxares II.,
nor does the Second Isaiah (xlv.), who evidently contemplates Cyrus
as the conqueror and the first king of Babylon. Are we to set a pro-
fessed romancer like Xenophon, and a late compiler like Josephus,
against these authorities ?
* T. W. Pinches, in Smith's Bibl. Did., i. 716, 2nd edn. Into this
theory are pressed the general expressions that Darius " received the
kingdom" and was "made king," which have not the least bearing
on it. They may simply mean that he became king by conquest, and
not in the ordinary course — so Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, Von Lengerke,
etc. ; or perhaps the words show some sense of uncertainty as to the
exact course of events. The sequence of Persian kings in Seder
Ohim, 28-30, and in Rashi on Dan. \'. i, ix. I, is equally unhistorical.
PECULIARITIES OF THE HISTORIC SECTION 59
Ion ? How could a contemporary governor have
appointed " one hundred and twenty princes which
should be over the whole kingdom," ^ when, even in
the days of Darius Hystaspis, there were only twenty
or twenty-three satrapies in the Persian Empire ? ^
And how could a mere provincial viceroy be approached
by " all the presidents of the kingdom, the governors,
and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains," to
pass a decree that any one who for thirty days offered
any prayer to God or man, except to him, should be
cast into the den of lions ? The fact that such a decree
could only be made by a king is emphasised in the
narrative itself (vi. 12 : comp. iii. 29). The sup-
posed analogies offered by Professor Fuller and others
in favour of a decree so absurdly impossible — except in
the admitted licence and for the high motal purpose of
a Jewish Haggada — are to the last degree futile. In
any ordinary criticism they woiild be set down as idle
special pleading. Yet this is only one of a multitude
of wildly improbable incidents, which, from misunder-
standing of the writer's age and purpose, have been
taken for sober history, though they receive from his-
torical records and monuments no shadow of confirma-
tion, and are in not a few instances directly opposed
to all that we now know to be certain histor}^ Even if
it were conceivable that this hypothetic " Darius the
Mede " was Gobryas, or Astyages, or Cyaxares, it is
plain that the author of Daniel gives him a name and
national designation which lead to mere confusion, and
speaks of him in a way which would have been surely
avoided by any contemporary.
' This is supported by the remark that this three-months viceroy
" appointed governors in Babylon " !
- Ilcrod., iii. 89 ; Recon/s 0/ the Past, viii. S8.
6o THE BOOK OF DANIEL
" Darius the Mede," says Professor Sayce, " is in fact
a reflection into the past of Darius the son of Hystasfics,^
just as the siege and capture of Bab3'lon by Cyrus are a
reflection into the past of its siege and capture by the
same prince. The name of Darius and the story of the
slaughter of the Chaldean king go together. They are
alike derived from the unwritten history which, in the
East of to-day, is still made by the people, and which
blends together in a single picture the manifold events
and personages of the past. It is a history which
has no perspective, though it is based on actual facts ;
the accurate combinations of the chronologer have no
meaning for it, and the events of a century are crowded
into a few years. This is the kind of history which
/ the Jewish mind in the age of the Talmud loved to adapt
\ to moral and religious purposes. This kind of history
( then becomes as it were a parable, and under the name
\ of Haggada set'ves to illustrate that teaching of the
' /aw."-
The favourable view given of the character of the
imaginary Darius the Mede, and his regard for Daniel,
may have been a confusion with the Jewish reminiscences
of Darins, son of Hystaspes, who permitted the re-
building of the Temple under Zerubbabel.^
If we look for the source of the confusion, we see it
' See, too, Meinhold {Beitriigc, p. 46), who concludes his survey
with the words, " Sprachliche wie sachliche Griinde machen es tiicht
nur ■walirsclieinlicli sondent gewiss dass an danielsche Autorschaft von
Dan. ii.-vi., iiberhanpt an die Entstehung zur Zeit der ji'idischen Ver-
bannung nicht zu denken ist." He adds that almost all scholars
believe the chapters to be no older than the age of the Maccabees, and
that even Kahnis {Dogntalik, i. 376) and Delitzsch (Herzog, s.v.
" Dan.") give up their genuineness. He himself believes that these
Aramaic chapters were incorporated by a later writer, who wrote the
introduction.
'" Sayce, I.e., p. 529. ^ Kamphausen, p. 4^.
PECULIARITIES]OF THE HISTORIC SECTION 61
perhaps in the prophecy of Isaiah (xiii. 17, xiv. 6-22),
that the Medes should be the destroyers of Babylon ;
or in that of Jeremiah — a prophet of whom the author
had made a special study (Dan. ix. 2) — to the same
effect (Jer. li. 11-28); together with the tradition that
a Darius — namely, the son of Hystaspes — had once
conquered Babylon.
XIV. But to make confusion worse confounded, if
these chapters were meant for history, the problematic
" Darius the Mede " is in Dan. ix. i called " the son of
Ahasuerus."
Now Ahasuerus (Achashverosh) is the same as Xerxes,
and is the Persian name Khshyarsha ; and Xerxes was
the sou, not the father, of Darius Hystaspis, who was a
Persian, not a Mede. Before Darius Hystaspis could
have been transformed into the son of his own son
Xerxes, the reigns, not only of Darius, but also of
Xerxes, must have long been past.
XV. There is yet another historic sign that this
Book did not originate till the Persian Empire had
long ceased to exist. In xi. 2 the writer only knows
oi four kings of Persia.^ These are evidently Cyrus,
Cambyses, Darius Hystaspis, and Xerxes — whom he
describes as the richest of them. This king is de-
stroyed by the kingdom of Grecia — an obvious con-
fusion of popular tradition between the defeat inflicted
on the Persians by the Republican Greeks in the days
* Sayce, I.e. The author of the Book of Daniel seems only to
have known of three kings of Persia after Cyrus (xi. 2), But five are
mentioned in the Old Testament — Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, Xerxes,
and Darius III. (Codomannus, Neh. xii. 22). There were three
Dariuses and three Artaxerxes, but he only knows one of each
name (Kamphausen, p. 32). He might easily have overlooked the
fact that the Darius of Neh. xii. 22 was a wholly different person
from the Darius of Ezra vi. i .
62 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
of Xerxes (b.c. 480), and the overthrow of the Persian
kingdom under Darius Codomannus by Alexander the
Great (b.c. 333).
These, then, are some of the apparent historic im-
possibilities by which we are confronted when we
regard this Book as professed history. The doubts
suggested by such seeming errors are not in the least
removed by the acervation of endless conjectures.
They are greatly increased by the fact that, so far
from standing alone, they are intensified by other
difficulties which arise under every fresh aspect under
which the Book is studied. Behrmann, the latest
editor, sums up his studies with the remark that
" there is an almost universal agreement that the Book,
in its present form and as a whole, had its origin in the
Maccabean age ; while there is a widening impression
that in its purpose it is not an exclusive product of
that period." No amount of casuistical ingenuity can
long prevail to overthrow the spreading conviction that
the views of Hengstenberg, Havernick, Keil, Pusey,
and their followers, have been refuted by the light of
advancing knowledge — which is a light kindled for us
by God Himself.
CHAPTER IV
GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK
IN endeavouring to see the idea and construction of
a book there is always much room for the play
of subjective considerations. Meinhold has especially
studied this subject, but we cannot be certain that his
views are more than imaginative. He thinks that
chap, ii., in which we are strongly reminded of the
story of Joseph and of Pharaoh's dreams, is intended
to set forth God as Omniscient, and chap. iii. as
Omnipotent. To these conceptions is added in chap. iv.
the insistence upon God's All-holiness. The fifth
and sixth chapters form one conception. Since the
death of Belshazzar is assigned to the night of his
banquet no edict could be ascribed to him resembling
those attributed to Nebuchadrezzar. The effect of
Daniel's character and of the Divine protection ac-
corded to him on the mind of Darius is expressed
in the strong edict of the latter in vi. 26, 27. This
is meant to illustrate that the All-wise, Almighty, All-
holy God is the Only Living God. The consistent and
homogeneous object of the whole historic section is to
set forth the God of the Hebrews as exalting Himself
in the midst of heathendom, and extorting submission
by mighty portents from heathen potentates. In this
the Book offers a general analogy to the section of the
history of the Israelites in Egypt narrated in Exod. i. 1 2,
63
64 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
The culmination of recognition as to the power of God
is seen in the decree of Darius (vi. 26, 27), as compared
with that of Nebuchadrezzar in iv. 33. According to
this view, the meaning and essence of each separate
chapter are given in its closing section, and there is
artistic advance to the great climax, marked alike by
the resemblances of these four paragraphs (ii. 47, iii.
28, 29, iv. 37, vi. 26, 27), and by their differences.
To this main purpose all the other elements of these
splendid pictures — the faithfulness of Hebrew wor-
shippers, the abasement of blaspheming despots, the
mission of Israel to the nations — are subordinated.
The chief aim is to set forth the helpless humiliation of
all false gods before the might of the God of Israel.
It might be expressed in the words, " Of a truth. Lord,
the kings of Assyria have laid waste all the nations,
and cast their gods into the fire ; for they were no
gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone."
A closer glance at these chapters will show some
grounds for these conclusions.
Thus, in the second chapter, the magicians and
sorcerers repudiate all possibility of revealing the king's
dream and its interpretation, because they are but
men, and the gods have not their dwelling with mortal
flesh (ii. 11); but Daniel can tell the dream because he
stands near to his God, who, though He is in heaven,
yet is All-wise, and revealeth secrets.
In the third chapter the destruction of the strongest
soldiers of Nebuchadrezzar by fire, and the absolute
deliverance of the three Jews whom they have flung
into the furnace, convince Nebuchadrezzar that no
god can deliver as the Almighty does, and that there-
fore it is blasphemy deserving of death to utter a word
against Him.
THE GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK 65
In chap. iv. the supremac}^ of Daniel's wisdom as
derived from God, the fulfilment of the threatened
judgment, and the deliverance of the mighty King of
Babylon from his degrading madness when he lifts
up his eyes to heaven, convince Nebuchadrezzar still
more deeply that God is not only a Gr-eat God, but that
no other being, man or god, can even be compared to
Him. He is the Only and the Eternal God, who " doeth
according to His will in the army of heaven" as well as
*' among the inhabitants of the earth," and " none can
stay His hand." This is the highest point of con-
viction. Nebuchadrezzar confesses that God is not
only Primus inter pares, but the Irresistible God, and
his own God. And after this, in the fifth chapter,
Daniel can speak to Belshazzar of " the Lord of
heaven" (v, 23); and as the king's Creator; and of
the nothingness of gods of silver, and gold, and brass,
and wood, and stone ; — as though those truths had
already been decisively proved. And this belief finds
open expression in the decree of Darius (vi. 26, 27),
which concludes the historic section.
It is another indication of this main purpose of these
histories that the plural form of the Name of God — Elohim
— does not once occur in chaps, ii.-vi. It is used in
i. 2, 9, 17 ; but not again till the ninth chapter, where
it occurs twelve times; once in the tenth (x. 12); and
twice of God in the eleventh chapter (xi. 32, l,']^. In
the prophetic section (vii. 18, 22, 25, 27) we have
"Most High" in the plural (^clionin) ;^ but with refer-
ence only to the One God (see vii. 25). But in all
cases where the heathen are addressed this plural
becomes the singular {chlleh, i^?'^), as throughout the
' Literally, as in margin, " Mioii iii^h things" or "places."
66 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
first six chapters. This avoidance of so common a
word as the plural Eloliim for God, because the plural
form might conceivably have been misunderstood by
the heathen, shows the elaborate construction of the
Book.^ God is called Eloah Shamain, " God of heaven,"
in the second and third chapters ; but in later chapters
we have the common post-exilic phrase in the plural.'-^
In the fourth and fifth chapters we have God's Holi-
ness first brought before us, chiefly on its avenging
side ; and it is not till we have witnessed the proof of
His Unity, Wisdom, Omnipotence, and Justice, which
it is the mission of Israel to make manifest among the
heathen, that all is summed up in the edict of Darius
to all people, nations, and languages.
The omission of any express recognition of God's
tender compassion is due to the structure of these
chapters ; for it would hardly be possible for heathen
potentates to recognise that attribute in the immediate
presence of His judgments. It is somewhat remarkable
that the name " Jehovah " is avoided.^ As the Jews pur-
posely pronounced it with wrong vowels, and the LXX.
render it by Kvpio<;, the Samaritan by ncct:*, and the
Rabbis by " the Name," so we find in the Book of
Daniel a similar avoidance of the awful Tetragrammaton,
' In iv. 5, 6; and elolnn means "gods" in the mouth of a heathen
("spirit of the holy gods ").
^ Elohln occurs repeatedly in chap, ix., and in x. 12, xi. 32, 37.
^ It only occurs in Dan. ix.
CHAPTER V
THE THEOLOGY OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL
AS regards the religious views of the Book of Daniel
some of them at any rate are in full accordance
with the belief in the late origin of the Book to which
we are led b}'^ so many indications.^
I. Thus in Dan. xii. 2 (for we may here so far anti-
cipate the examination of the second section of the
Book) we meet, for the first time in Scripture, with a
distinct recognition of the resurrection of the individual
dead.^ This, as all know, is a doctrine of which we
only find the faintest indication in the earlier books of
the Canon. Although the doctrine is still but dimly
formulated, it is clearer in this respect than Isa. xxv. 8,
xxvi. 19.
II. Still more remarkable is the special prominence
of angels. It is not God who goes forth to war
(Judg. V. 13, 23), or takes personal part in the deliver-
ance or punishment of nations (Isa. v. 26, vii. 18).
Throned in isolated and unapproachable transcendence,
He uses the agency of intermediate beings (Dan. iv. 14).^
' The description of God as " the Ancient of Days " with garments
wliite as snow, and of His throne of flames on burning wheels, is
found again in the Book of Enoch, written about b.c. 141 (Enoch xiv.).
- See Dan. xii, 2. Comp. Jos., D. J., II. viii. 14; Enoch xxii. 13,
Ix. 1-5, etc.
^ Comp. Smend, Alltest. Relig. Gesch.. p. 530. For references to
67
68 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
In full accordance with late developments of Jewish
opinion angels are mentioned by special names, and
appear as Princes and Protectors of special lands. ^ In
no other book in the Old Testament have we any
names given to angels, or any distinction between their
dignities, or any trace of their being in mutual rivalry
as Princes or Patrons of different nationalities. These
remarkable features of angelology only occur in the
later epoch, and in the apocalyptic literature to which
this Book belongs. Thus they are found in the LXX.
translations of Deut. xxxii. 8 and Isa. xxx. 4, and in
such post-Maccabean books as those of Enoch and
Esdras.'^
III. Again, we have the fixed custom of three daily
formal pra3'ers, uttered towards the Kibleh of Jerusalem.
This may, possibly, have begun during the Exile. It
became a normal rule for later ages.^ The Book, how-
ever, like that of Jonah, is, as a whole, remarkably free
from any extravagant estimate of Levitical minutiae.
IV. Once more, for the first time in Jewish stor}^,
we find extreme importance attached to the Levitical
distinction of clean and unclean meats, which also
comes into prominence in the age of the Maccabees,
as it afterwards constituted a most prominent element
in the ideal of Talmudic religionism.* Daniel and the
angels in Old Testament see Job i. 6, xxxviii. 7 ; Jer. xxiii. 18 ; Psalm
Ixxxix. 7; Josh. V. 13-15 ; Zcch. i. 12, iii. I. See further Behrmann,
Dan., p. xxiii.
' Dan. iv. 14, ix. 21, x. 13, 20.
'■^ See Enoch Ixxi. 17, Ixviii. 10, and the six archangels Uriel,
Raphael, Regucl, Michael, Saragael, and Gabriel in Enoch xx.-xxxvi.
See Rosh Haslumali, f. 56, i ; BoesliUh Robba, c. 48; Hamburger, i.
305-312.
' Bcraclwth, f. 31 ; Dan. vi. 11. Comp. Psalm Iv. 18; i Kings viii
38-48-
* I Mace. i. 62 ; Dan. i. 8 ; 2 Mace. v. 27, vi. i8-vii. 42.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE BOOK 69
Three Children are vegetarians, like the Pharisees after
the destruction of the Second Temple, mentioned in
Baba Bathra, f. 60, 2.
V. We have already noticed the avoidance of the
sacred name " Jehovah " even in passages addressed to
Jews (Dan. ii. 18), though we find "Jehovah" in
2 Chron. xxxvi. 7. Jehovah only occurs in reference to
Jer. XXV. 8-1 1, and in the prayer of the ninth chapter,
where we also find Adoiiai and Elohim.
Periphrases for God, like "the Ancient of Days,"
become normal in Talmudic literature.
VI. Again, the doctrine of the Messiah, like these
other doctrines, is, as Professor Driver says, " taught
with greater distinctness and in a more developed form
than elsewhere in the Old Testament, and with features
approximating to, though not identical with, those met
with in the earlier parts of the Book of Enoch (b.c. 100).
In one or two instances these developments may have
been partially moulded by foreign influences.^ They
undoubtedly mark a later phase of revelation than that
which is set before us in other books of the Old
Testament. And the conclusion indicated by these
special features in the Book is confirmed by the general
atmosphere which we breathe throughout it. The atmo-
sphere and tone are not those of any other writings
belonging to the Jews of the Exile ; it is rather that
of the Maccabean Chasidlm. How far the Messianic
Bar Enosh (vii. 13) is meant to be a person will be
considered in the comment on that passage.
We shall see in later pages that the supreme value
' Introd., p. 477. Comp. 2 Esdras xiii. 41-45, and passim; Enoch
xl., xlv., xlvi., xlix., and passim ; Hamburger, Real-Eticycl.^ ii. 267 ff.
With "the time of the end " and the numerical calculations comp.
"i Esdras vi. 6, 7.
70 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
and importance of the Book of Daniel, rightly under-
stood, consists in this — that " it is the first attempt at
a Philosophy, or rather at a Theology of History." ^
Its main object was to teach the crushed and afflicted
to place unshaken confidence in God.
' Roszmann, Die Makkabiiische Erhebiing, p. 45. See Wellhausen,
Die Pilaris. 11. d. SacM., 77 ff.
CHAPTER VI
PECULIARITIES OF THE APOCALYPTIC AND
PROPHETIC SECTION OF THE BOOK
IF we have found much to lead us to serious doubts
as to the authenticity and genuineness — i.e., as to
the Hteral historicity and the real author — of the Book
of Daniel in its historic section, we shall find still more
in the prophetic section. If the phenomena already
passed in review are more than enough to indicate the
impossibility that the Book could have been written by
the historic Daniel, the phenomena now to be considered
are such as have sufficed to convince the immense
majority of learned critics that, in its present form,
the Book did not appear before the days of Antiochus
Epiphanes.^ The probable date is B.C. 164. As in
the Book of Enoch xc. 15, 16, it contains history
written under the form of prophecy.
Leaving minuter examination to later chapters of
commentary, we will now take a brief survey of this
unique apocalypse.
I. As regards the style and method the only distant
approach to it in the rest of the Old Testament is in
a few visions of Ezekiel and Zechariah, which differ
' Among these critics are Delitzsch, Riehm, Evvald, Bunsen,
Hilgenfeld, Cornill, Liicke, Strack, Schiirer, Kuenen, Meinhold,
Ocelli, Joel, Reuss, Konig, Kamphausen, Cheyne, Driver, Briggs,
Bevan, Behrmann, etc.
71
72 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
greatly from the clear, and so to speak classic, style
of the older prophets. But in Daniel we find visions
far more enigmatical, and far less full of passion and
poetry. Indeed, as regards style and intellectual force,
the splendid historic scenes of chaps, i.-vi. far sur-
pass the visions of vii.-xii., some of which have been
described as "composite logographs," in which the
ideas are forcibly juxtaposed without care for any
coherence in the symbols — as, for instance, when a
horn speaks and has e3'es.'^
Chap. vii. contains a vision of four different wild
beasts rising from the sea : a lion, with eagle-wings,
which afterwards becomes semi-human ; a bear, leaning
on one side, and having three ribs in its mouth ; a four-
winged, four-headed panther ; and a still more terrible
creature, with iron teeth, brazen claws, and ten horns,
among which rises a little horn, which destroyed three
of the others — it has man's eyes and a mouth speaking
proud things.
There follows an epiphany of the Ancient of Days,
who destroys the little horn, but prolongs for a time
the existence of the other wild beasts. Then comes
One in human semblance, who is brought before the
Ancient of Days, and is clothed by Him with universal
and eternal power.
We shall see reasons for the view that the four
beasts — in accordance with the interpretation of the
vision given to Daniel himself — represent the Baby-
lonian, the Median, the Persian, and the Greek empires,
issuing in the separate kingdoms of Alexander's
successors ; and that the little horn is Antiochus
' Renan, History of Israel, iv. 354. He adds, "L'essence du genre
c'est le pscudonymc, on si Ton vcut I'apocrypliismc " (p. 356).
PECULIARITIES OF THE APOCALYPTIC SECTION 73
Epiphanes, whose overthrow is to be followed imme-
diately by the Messianic Kingdom.^
The' vision of the eighth chapter mainly pursues
the history of the fourth of these kingdoms. Daniel
sees a ram standing eastward of the river-basin of
the Ulai, having two horns, of which one is higher
than the other. It butts westward, northward, and
southward, and seemed irresistible, until a he-goat
from the West, with one horn between its eyes, con-
fronted it, and stamped it to pieces. After this its one
horn broke into four towards the four winds of heaven,
and one of them shot forth a puny horn, which grew
great towards the South and East, and acted tyrannously
against the Hol}^ People, and spoke blasphemously
against God. Daniel hears the holy ones declaring
that its powers shall only last two thousand three
hundred evening-mornings. An angel bids Gabriel
to explain the vision to Daniel ; and Gabriel tells the
seer that the ram represents the Medo-Persian and
the he-goat the Greek Kingdom. Its great horn is
Alexander; the four horns are the kingdoms of his
successors, the Diadochi ; the little horn is a king
bold of vision and versed in enigmas, whom all agree
to be Antiochus Epiphanes.
In the ninth chapter we are told that Daniel has
been meditating on the prophecy of Jeremiah that
Jerusalem should be rebuilt after seventy years, and
as the seventy years seem to be drawing to a close he
' Lagarde, Gott. Gel. Anzieg., 1891, pp. 497-520, stands almost, if
not quite, alone in arguing that Dan. vii. was not written till a.d. 69,
and that the " little horn " is meant for Vespasian. The relation of
the fourth empire of Dan. vii. to the iron part of the image in Dan. ii.
refutes this view : both can onlj' refer to the Greek Empire. Josephus
(Aiiit., X. xi. 7) does not refer to Dan. vii. ; but neither does he to
>x.-x'i., for reasons already mentioned See Cornill, Ein/eii, p. 262.
74 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
humbles himself with prayer aiul fasting. But Gabriel
comes flying to him at the time of the evening sacrifice,
and explains to him that the seventy years is to mean
seventy weeks of years — i.e., four hundred and ninety
years, divided into three periods of 7 + 62 + i- At
the end of seven {i.e., forty-nine) years an anointed
prince will order the restoration of Jerusalem. The
city will continue, though in humiliation, for sixt3'-two
{i.e., four hundred and thirty-four) 3'ears, when " an
anointed " will be cut off, and a prince will destroy it.
During half a week {i.e., for three and a half years) he
will cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease ; and he
will make a covenant with many for one week, at the
end of which he will be cut off.
Here, again, we shall have reason to see that the
whole prophecy culminates in, and is mainly concerned
with, Antiochus Epiphanes. In fact, it furnishes us
with a sketch of his fortunes, which, in connexion with
the eleventh chapter, tells us more about him than we
learn from any extant history.
In the tenth chapter Daniel, after a fast of twenty-
one days, sees a vision of Gabriel, who explains to him
why his coming has been delayed, soothes his fears,
touches his lips, and prepares him for the vision of
chapter eleven. That chapter is mainly occupied with
a singularly minute and circumstantial history of the
murders, intrigues, wars, and intermarriages of the
Lagidge and Seleucidte. So detailed is it that in some
cases the history has to be reconstructed out of it.
This sketch is followed by the doings and final over-
throw of Antiochus Epiphanes.
The twelfth chapter is the picture of a resurrection,
and of words of consolation and exhortation addressed
to Daniel.
PECULIARITIES OF THE APOCALYPTIC SECTION 75
Such in briefest outline are the contents of these
chapters, and their pecuharities are very marked.
Until the reader has studied the more detailed explana-
tion of the chapters separately, and especially of the
eleventh, he will be unable to estimate the enormous force
of the arguments adduced to prove the impossibility of
such " prophecies " having emanated from Babylon and
Susa about b.c. 536. Long before the astonishing en-
largement of our critical knowledge which has been the
v;ork of the last generation — nearly fifty years ago —
the mere perusal of the Book as it stands produced on
the manly and honest judgment of Dr. Arnold a strong
impression of uncertainty. He said that the latter
chapters of Daniel would, if genuine, be a clear excep-
tion to the canons of interpretation which he laid down
in his Sermons on Prophecy, since '* there can be no
reasonable spiritual meaning made out of the kings of ^
the North and South." " But," he adds, " I have long \
thought that the greater part of the Book of Daniel is ;
most certainly a very late work of the time of the ;
Maccabees ; and the pretended prophecies about the \
kings of Grecia and Persia, and of the North and South,
are mere history, like the poetical prophecies in Virgil
and elsewhere. In fact, you can trace distinctly the
date when it was written, because the events up to
that date are given with historical minuteness, totally
unlike the character of real prophecy ; and beyond that
date all is imaginary." ^
The Book is the earliest specimen of its kind known •
to us. It inaugurated a new and important branch of
Jewish literature, which influenced many subsequent
writers. An apocalypse, so far as its literary form is
concerned, '* claims throughout to be a supernatural
' Stanley, Life of Arnold, p. 505.
76 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
revelation given to mankind by the mouth of those
men in whose names tlie various writings appear." An
apocalypse — such, for instance, as the Books of Enoch,
the Assumption of Moses, Baruch, i, 2 Esdras, and the
Sibylline Oracles — is characterised b}' its enigmatic
form, which shrouds its meaning in parables and
symbols. It indicates persons without naming them,
and shadows forth historic events under animal forms,
or as operations of Nature. Even the explanations
which follow, as in this Book, are still mysterious and
indirect.
II. In the next place an apocalypse is literary, not
oral. Schiirer, who classes Daniel among the oldest and
most original of pseudepigraphic prophecies^ etc., rightly
says that '' the old prophets in their teachings and
exhortations addressed themselves directly to the
people first and foremost through their oral utterances ;
and then, but only as subordinate to these, by written
discourses as well. But now, when men felt them-
selves at any time compelled by their religious enthu-
siasm to influence their contemporaries, instead of
directly addressing them in person like the prophets
of old, they did so by a writing purporting to be the
work of some one or other of the great names of the
past, in the hope that in this way the effect would be
all the surer and all the more powerful." ^ The Daniel
of this Book represents himself, not as a prophet, but
as a humble student of the prophets. He no longer
claims, as Isaiah did, to speak in the Name of God
Himself with a " Thus saith Jehovah."
III. Thirdly, it is impossible not to notice that
Daniel differs from all other prophecies by its all-but-
total indifference to the circumstances and surroundings
' Schiirer, Hist, of the Jew. People, iii. 24 (E. Tr.).
PECULIARITIES OF THE APOCALYPTIC SECTION 77
in the midst of which the prediction is supposed to
have originated. The Daniel of Babylon and Susa is
represented as the writer; yet his whole interest is
concentrated, not in the events which immediately
interest the Jews of Babylon in the days of Cyrus,
or of Jerusalem under Zerubbabel, but deals with a
number of predictions which revolve almost exclusively
about the reign of a very inferior king four centuries
afterwards. And with this king the predictions abruptly
stop short, and are followed by the very general
promise of an immediate Messianic age.
We may notice further the constant use of round
and cyclic numbers, such as three and its compounds
(i. 5, iii. I, vi. 7, 10, vii. 5, 8); four (ii., vii. 6, and
viii. 8, xi. 12); seven and its compounds (iii. 19, iv. 16, 23,
ix. 24, etc.). The apocalyptic symbols of Bears, Lions,
Eagles, Horns, Wings, etc., abound in the contemporary
and later Books of Enoch, Baruch, 4 Esdras, the
Assumption of Moses, and the Sibyllines, as well as in
the early Christian apocalypses, like that of Peter. The
authors of the Sibyllines (b.c. 140) were acquainted with
Daniel ; the Book of Enoch breathes exactly the same
spirit with this Book, in the transcendentalism which
avoids the name Jehovah (vii. 13; Enoch xlvi. i, xlvii. 3),
in the number of angels (vii. 10; Enoch xl. i, Ix. 2),
their names, the title of " watchers " given to them,
and their guardianship of men (Enoch xx. 5). The
Judgment and the Books (vii. 9, 10, xii. i) occur again
in Enoch xlvii. 3, Ixxxi. i, as in the Book of Jubilees,
and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.^
' On the close resemblance between Daniel and other apocryphal
books see Behrmann, Dan., pp. 37-39; Dillmann, Das Buck Henoch.
For its relation to the Book of Baruch see Schrader, Keilinschriftcn,
435 f. Philo does not allude to Daniel.
CHAPTER VII
INTERNAL EVIDENCE
I. /^^THER pi"ophets start from the ground of the
\-J present, and to exigencies of the present their
prophecies were primarily directed. It is true that
their lofty moral teaching, their rapt poetry, their
impassioned feeling, had its inestimable value for all
ages. But these elements scarcely exist in the Book
of Daniel. Almost the whole of its prophecies bear on
one short particular period nearly four hundred years
after the supposed epoch of their delivery. What,
then, is the phenomenon they present ? Whereas ether
prophets, by studying the problems of the present in
the light flung upon them by the past, are enabled,
by combining the present with the past, to gain, with
the aid of God's Holy Spirit, a vivid glimpse of the
immediate future, for the instruction of the living
generation, the reputed author of Daniel passes over
the immediate future with a few words, and spends the
main part of his revelations on a triad of years separated
by centuries from contemporary history. Occupied as
this description is with the wars and negotiations
of empires which were 3'et unborn, it can have had
little practical significance for Daniel's fellow-exiles.
Nor could these " predictions " have been to prove the
possibility of supernatural foreknowledge,^ since, even
' Any apparently requisite modification of these words will he
considered hereafter.
78
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 79
after their supposed fulfilment, the interpretation of
them is open to the greatest difficulties and the gravest
doubts. If to a Bab3^1onian exile was vouchsafed a
gift of prevision so minute and so marvellous as enabled
him to describe the intermarriages of Ptolemies and
Seleucidse four centuries later, surely the gift must have
been granted for some decisive end. But these pre-
dictions are precisely the ones which seem to have
the smallest significance. We must say, with Semler,
that no such benefit seems likely to result from this
predetermination of comparatively unimportant minutiae
as God must surely intend when He makes use of
means of a very extraordinary character. It might
perhaps be said that the Book was written, four
hundred years before the crisis occurred, to console
the Jews under their brief period of persecution by the
Seleucidae. It would be indeed extraordinary that so
curious, distant, and roundabout a method should have
been adopted for an end which, in accordance with
the entire economy of God's dealings with men in
revelation, could have been so much more easily and
so much more effectually accomplished in simpler ways.
Further, unless we accept an isolated allusion to Daniel
in the imaginary speech of the dying Mattathias, there
is no trace whatever that the Book had the smallest
influence in inspiring the Jews in that terrible epoch.
And the reference of Mattathias, if it was ever made
at all, may be to old tradition, and does not allude to
the prophecies about Antiochus and his fate.
But, as Hengstenberg, the chief supporter of the
authenticity of the Book of Daniel, well observes,^
" Prophecy can never entirely separate itself from the
' Oil Revelations, vol. i., p. 40S (E. Tr.),
So THE BOOK OF DANIEL
ground of the present, to influence which is ahvays its
more immediate object, and to which therefore it must
constantly construct a bridge.^ On this also rests all
certainty of exposition as to the future. And that the
means should be provided for such a certainty is a
necessary consequence of the Divine nature of prophec}'.
A truly Divine prophecy cannot possibly swim in the
air ; nor can the Church be left to mere guesses in the
exposition of Scripture which has been given to her
as a light amid the darkness."
II. And as it does not start from the ground of the
present, so too the Book of Daniel reverses the method
of prophecy with reference to the future.
For the genuine predictions of Scripture advance by
slow and gradual degrees from the uncertain and the
general to the definite and the special. Prophecy
marches with history, and takes a takes a step for-
ward at each new period.^ So far as we know there is
not a single instance in which any prophet alludes to,
much less dwells upon, any kingdom which had not
then risen above the political horizon.^
In Daniel the case is reversed : the only kingdom
which was looming into sight is dismissed with a few
words, and the kingdom most dwelt upon is the most
distant and quite the most insignificant of all, of the
very existence of which neither Daniel nor his con-
temporaries had even remotely heard.'*
III. Then again, although the prophets, with their
' " Diciit bei ihnen die Zukunft der Gegenwart, und ist selbs^t
fortgcsctzte Gcgcmuart" (Behrmann, Dan., p. xi).
'■^ See M. de Prcssense, Hist, des Trois Piein. Siecks, p. 2S3.
^ See some admirable remarks on this subject in Ewald, Die Proph.
d, Alt. Bund., i. 23, 24; Winer, Rmlivurterb., s.v. " Proplieten "
Stahelin, Einleit., § 197,
■■ Comp. Enoch i. 2.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 8i
divinely illuminated souls, reached far beyond intel-
lectual sagacity and political foresight, yet their hints
about the future never distantly approach to detailed
history like that of Daniel. They do indeed so far
lift the veil of the Unseen as to shadow forth the out-
line of the near future, but they do this only on general
terms and on general principles.^ Their object, as I
have repeatedly observed, vi^as mainly moral, and it
was also confessedly conditional, even when no hint
is given of the implied condition.^ Nothing is more
certain than the wisdom and beneficence of that Divine
provision which has hidden the future from men's
eyes, and even taught us to regard all prying into its
minute events as vulgar and sinful.^ Stargazing and
monthly prognostication were rather the characteristics
of false religion and unhallowed divinations than of
faithful and holy souls. Nitzsch* most justly lays it
down as an essential condition of prophecy that it
should not disturb maiis relation to history. Anything
like detailed description of the future would intoler-
ably perplex and confuse our sense of human free-will.
It would drive us to the inevitable conclusion that men
are but puppets moved irresponsibly by the hand of
inevitable fate. Not one such prophecy, unless this
be one, occurs anywhere in the Bible. We do not
think that (apart from Messianic prophecies) a single
instance can be given in which any prophet distinctly
and minutely predicts a future series of events of which
the fulfilment was not near at hand. In the few cases
' Evvald, Die Proph., i. 27 ; Michel Nicolas, Etudes sitr la Bible,
pp. 336 ff.
■^ Comp. Mic. iii. 12; Jer. xxvi. 1-19; Ezek. i. 21. Comp. xxix. 18, 19.
^ Deut. xviii. 10.
* Systetn der christlichen LeJire, p. 66.
6
82 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
when some event, already imminent, is predicted appa-
rently with some detail, it is not certain whether some
touches — names, for instance — may not have been added
by editors living subsequently to the occurrence of the
event.^ That there has been at all times a gift of
prescience, whereby the Spirit of God, "entering into
holy souls, has made them sons of God and prophets,"
is indisputable. It is in virtue of this high fore-
knowledge ^ that the voice of the Hebrew Sibyl has
"Rolled sounding onwards through a thousand years
Her deep prophetic bodiments."
Even Demosthenes, by virtue of a statesman's
thoughtful experience, can describe it as his office and
duty " to see events in their beginnings, to discern
their purport and tendencies from the first, and to
forewarn his countrymen accordingl}'." Yet the power
of Demosthenes was as nothing compared with that
of an Isaiah or a Nahum ; and we may safely say that
the writings alike of the Greek orator and the Hebrew
prophets would have been comparatively valueless had
they merely contained anticipations of future history,
instead of dealing with truths whose value is equal
for all ages — truths and principles which give clearness
to the past, security to the present, and guidance to
the future. Had it been the function of prophecy to
remove the veil of obscurity which God in His wisdom
has hung over the destinies of men and kingdoms, it
would never have attained, as it has done, to the love
and reverence of mankind.
IV. Another unique and abnormal feature is found
' E.g., in the case of Josiah (i Kings xiii. 2).
■ De Corona, 73 : Ibeiv ra. irpdyfjLaTa dpxd/xeva /cat Trpoai<rd^(T0ai Kal
irpoeiwiiv tols &\\ols.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 83
in the close and accurate chronological calculations in
which the Book of Daniel abounds. We shall see
later on that the dates of the Maccabean reconsecration
of the Temple and the ruin of Antiochus Epiphanes
are indicated almost to the day. The numbers of
prophecy are in all other cases S3^mbolical and general.
They are intentional compounds of seven — the sum of
three and four, which are the numbers that mystically
shadow forth God and the world — a number which
even Cicero calls " reruin omnium fere modus " ; and of
ten, the number of the world.^ If we except the pro-
phecy of the seventy years' captivity — which was a
round number, and is in no respect parallel to the
periods of Daniel — there is no other instance in the
Bible of a chronological prophecy. We say no other
instance, because one of the commentators who, in
writing upon Daniel, objects to the remark of Nitzsch
that the numbers of prophecy are mystical, yet observes
on the one thousand two hundred and sixty days of
Rev. xii. that the number one thousand two hundred
and sixty, or three and a half years, " has no historical
signification whatever, and is only to be viewed in its
relation to the number seven — viz., as symbolising the
apparent victory of the world over the Church." ^
V. Alike, then, in style, in matter, and in what has
been called by V. Orelli its " exoteric " manner, — alike
in its definiteness and its indefiniteness — in the point
from which it starts and the period at which it termi-
nates— -in its minute details and its chronological indica-
tions— in the absence of the moral and the impassioned
' The symbolism of numbers is carefully and learnedly worked out
in Bahr's Symbolik : cf. Auberlen, p. 133. The several fulfilments of
the prophesied seventy years' captivity illustrate this.
'^ Hcngstenberg, On Revelations, p. 609.
84 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
element, and in the sense of fatalism which it must
have introduced into history had it been a genuine
prophecy, — the Book of Daniel differs from all the
other books which compose that prophetic canon.
From that canon it was rightly and deliberately ex-
cluded by the Jews. Its worth and dignity can only
be rationally vindicated or rightly understood by sup-
posing it to have been the work of an unknown moralist
and patriot of the Maccabean age.
And if anything further were wanting to complete
the cogency of the internal evidence which forces this
conclusion upon us, it is amply found in a study of
those books, confessedly apocryphal, which, although
far inferior to the Book before us, are yet of value, and
which we believe to have emanated from the same era.
They resemble this Book in their language, both
Hebrew and Aramaic, as well as in certain recurring
expressions and forms to be found in the Books of
Maccabees and the Second Book of Esdras ; — in their
style— rhetorical rather than poetical, stately rather
than ecstatic, diffuse rather than pointed, and wholly
inferior to the prophets in depth and power ; — in the use
of an apocalyptic method, and the strange combination
of dreams and symbols ; — in the insertion, by way of
embellishment, of speeches and formal documents which
can at the best be only semi-historical ; — finall}'^, in the
whole tone of thought, especially in the quite peculiar
doctrine of archangels, of angels guarding kingdoms,
and of opposing evil spirits. In short, the Book of
Daniel may be illustrated by the Apocryphal books in
every single particular. In the adoption of an illus-
trious name — which is the most marked characteristic
of this period — it resembles the addifioiis to the Book
of Daniel, the Books of Esdras, the Letters of Baruch
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 85
and Jeremiah, and the Wisdom of Solomon. In the
imaginary and quasi-legendary treatment of history it
finds a parallel in Wisdom xvi.-xix., and parts of the
Second Book of Maccabees and the Second Book of
Esdras. As an allusive narrative bearing on contem-
poraneous events under the guise of describing the
past, it is closely parallel to the Book of Judith, "^ while
the character of Daniel bears the same relation to that
of Joseph, as the representation of Judith does to that
of Jael. As an ethical development of a few scattered
historical data, tending to the marvellous and super-
natural, but rising to the dignity of a very noble and
important religious fiction, it is analogous, though in-
comparably superior, to Bel and the Dragon, and to the
stories of Tobit and Susanna.'
The conclusion is obvious ; and it is equally obvious
that, when we suppose the name of Daniel to have
been assumed, and the assumption to have been sup-
ported b}'' an antique colouring, we do not for a moment
charge the unknown author — who may very well have
been Onias IV. — with any dishonesty. Indeed, it
appears to us that there are many traces in the Book
— (pcovdvra avverolaiv — which exonerate the writer from
any suspicion of i)itentional deception. They may have
been meant to remove any tendency to error in under-
standing the artistic guise which was adopted for the
better and more forcible inculcation of the lessons to
be conveyed. That the stories of Daniel offered pecu-
liar opportunities for this treatment is shown by the
apocryphal additions to the Book ; and that the practice
' All these particulars may be found, without any allusion to the
Book of Daniel, in the admirable article on the Apocrypha by Dean
Plumptre in Dr. Smith's Did. of the Bible.
- Ewald, Gescfi. Isr., iv. 541,
86 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
was well understood even before the closing of' the
Canon is sufficientl}^ shown by the Book of Ecclesiastes.
The writer of that strange and fascinating book, with
its alternating moods of cynicism and resignation, merely
adopted the name of Solomon, and adopted it with no
dishonourable purpose ; for he could not have dreamed
that utterances which in page after page betray to
criticism their late origin would really be identified
v.'ith the words of the son of David a thousand years
before Christ. This may now be regarded as an in-
disputable, and is indeed a no longer disputed, result
of all literary and philological inquiry.
It is to Porphyry, a Neoplatonist of the third century
(born at Tyre, a.d. 233 ; died in Rome, a.d. 303), that
we owe our abilit}'^ to write a continuous historical
commentary on the symbols of Daniel. That writer
devoted the twelfth book of his ^10704 Kara Xpiariavcov
to a proof that Daniel was not written till a//cr the
epoch which it so minutely described.^ In order to do
this he collected with great learning and industry a
history of the obscure Antiochian epoch from authors
most of whom have perished. Of these authors Jerome
— the most valuable part of whose commentary is
derived from Porphyry — gives a formidable list, men-
tioning among others Callinicus, Diodorus, Polybius,
Posidonius, Claudius, Theo, and Andronicus. It is a
strange fact that the exposition of a canonical book
should have been mainly rendered possible by an
avowed opponent of Christianity. It was the object
of Porphyry to prove that the apocalyptic portion of
the Book was not a prophecy at all.^ It used to be a
' "Et non tarn Danielem veuiura dixisse quam ilium tiarrasse
prceterita'^ (Jer.).
^ "Ad intelligendas autcm extremas Danielis partes multiplex
INTERNAL EVIDENCE 87
constant taunt against those who adopt 'his critical
conclusions that their weapons are borrowed from the
armoury of an infidel. The objection hardly seems
worth answering. "Fas est et ab hoste doceri." If the
enemies of our religion have sometimes helped us the
better to understand our sacred books, or to judge
more correctly respecting them, we should be grateful
that their assaults have been overruled to our in-
struction. The reproach is wholly beside the question.
We may apply to it the manly words of Grotius : " Neque
me pudeat consentire Porphyrio, quando is in veram
sententiam incidit:' Moreover, St. Jerome, himself could
not have written his commentary, as he himself admits,
without availing himself of the aid of the erudition of
the heathen philosopher, whom no less a person than St.
Augustine called ^' doctissimus philosophorum,'' though
unhappily he was " acerrimiis christianoriim inimtais.'^
Graecorum historia necessaria est" (Jer., Prooent. Explan. in Dan.
Proph. adf.). Among these Greek historians he mentions eight whom
Porphyry had consulted, and adds, " Et si quando cogimur litterarum
sfficularium recordari . . . non nostrae est vokintatis, sed ut dicam,
gi-avissimce necessitatis." We know Porphyry's arguments mainly
through the commentary of Jerome, wlio, indeed, derived from
Porphyry the historic data without which the eleventh chapter,
among others, would have been wholly unintelligible.
CHAPTER VIII
EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE GENUINENESS
UNCERTAIN AND INADEQUATE
WE have seen that there are many circumstances
which force upon us the gravest doubts as to
the authenticity of the Book of Daniel. We now pro-
ceed to examine the evidence urged in its favour, and
deemed adequate to refute the conclusion that in its
present form it did not see the light before the time of
Antiochus IV.
Taking Hengstenberg as the most learned reasoner
in favour of the genuineness of Daniel, we will pass in
review all the positive arguments which he has adduced.^
They occupy no less than one hundred and ten pages
(pp. 182-291) of the English translation of his work on
the genuineness of Daniel. Most of them are tortuous
specimens of special pleading inadequate in them-
selves, or refuted by increased knowledge derived from
the monuments and from further inquiry. To these
arguments neither Dr. Pusey nor any subsequent
writer has made any material addition. Some of them
have been already answered, and many of them are so
unsatisfactory that they may be dismissed at once.
I. Such, for instance, are the testimony of the author
' Havernick is another able and sincere supporter ; but Droyscn
truly says (^Gcsch. d. Hellcnismus, ii. 21 1), "Die Havernickschen
Auffassung kann kein vernunftiger Mensch bestimmen.''
88
FAVOURABLE EVIDENCE UNCERTAIN 89
hitnself. In one of those slovenly treatises which only
serve to throw dust in the eyes of the ignorant we find
it stated that, " although the name of Daniel is not
prefixed to his Book, the passages in which he speaks
in the first person sufficiently prove that he was the
author"! Such assertions deserve no answer. If the
mere assumption of a name be a siifficient proof of the
authorship of a book, we are rich indeed in Jewish
authors — and, not to speak of others, our list includes
works by Adam, Enoch, Eldad, Medad, and Elijah.
" Pseudonymity," says Behrmann, " was a very common
characteristic of the literature of that da}^, and the
conception of literary property was alien to that epoch,
and especially to the circle of writings of this class."
II. The character of the language, as we have seen
already, proves nothing. Hebrew and Aramaic long
continued in common use side by side at least among
the learned,^ and the divergence of the Aramaic in
Daniel from that of the Targums leads to no definite
result, considering the late and uncertain age of those
writings.
III. How any argument can be founded on the exact
knowledge of history displayed by local colouring we
cannot understand. Were the knowledge displayed
ever so exact it would only prove that the author was
a learned man, which is obvious already. But so far
from any remarkable accuracy being shown by, the
author, it is, on the contrary, all but impossible to
reconcile many of his statements with acknowledged
facts. The elaborate and tortuous explanations, the
frequent " subauditur," the numerous assumptions
' See Grimm, Comynent., zum I. Buch der Makk., Einleit., xvii. ;
Movers in Bonner Zeiischr., Heft 13, pp. 31 ff. ; Stahelin, EinleH.,
p. 356.
90 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
required to force the text into accordance with the
certain historic data of the Babylonian and Persian
empires, tell far more against the Book than for it.
The methods of accounting for these inaccuracies are
mostly self-confuting, for they leave the subject in
hopeless confusion, and each orthodox commentator
shows how untenable are the views of others.
IV. Passing over other arguments of Keil, Hengsten-
berg, etc., which have been either refuted already, or
which are too weak to deserve repetition, we proceed to
examine one or two of a more serious character. Great
stress, for instance, is laid on the reception of the Book
into the Canon. We acknowledge the canonicity of
the Book, its high value when rightly apprehended, and
its rightful acceptance as a sacred book ; but this in
nowise proves its authenticity. The history of the Old
Testament Canon is involved in the deepest obscurity.
The belief that it was finally completed by Ezra and the
Great Synagogue rests on no foundation ; indeed, it is
irreconcilable with later historic notices and other facts
connected with the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,
and the two Books of Chronicles. The Christian
Fathers in this, as in some other cases, implicitly
believed what came to them from the most questionable
sources, and was mixed up with mere Jewish fables.
One of the oldest Talmudic books,' the Pirke Abo/h, is
entirely silent on the collection of the Old Testament,
though in a vague way it connects the Great Synagogue
with the preservation of the Law. The earliest mention
of the legend about Ezra is in the Second Book of Esdras
(xiv. 29-48). This book does not possess the slightest
claim to authority, as it was not completed till a century
after the Christian era; and it mingles up with this
very narrative a number of particulars thoroughly fabu-
FAVOURABLE EVIDENCE UNCERTAIN 91
lous and characteristic of a period when the Jewish
writers were always ready to subordinate history to
imaginative fables. The account of the magic cup, the
forty days and forty nights' dictation, the ninety books
of which seventy were secret and intended only for the
learned, form part of the very passage from which we
are asked to believe that Ezra established our existing
Canon, though the genuine Book of Ezra is wholly
silent about his having performed any such inestimable
service. It adds nothing to the credit of this fable that
it is echoed by Irenaeus, Clemens Alcxandrinus, and
Tertullian.^ Nor are there any external considerations
which render it probable. The Talmudic tradition in
the Baba Bathra'^' which says (among other remarks
in a passage of which " the notorious errors prove the
unreliability of its testimony ") that the " men of the
Great S3'nagogue wrote the Books of Ezekiel, the Twelve
Minor Prophets, Daniel^ and Ezra..^ It is evident that,
so far as this evidence is worth anything, it rather goes
against the authenticity of Daniel than for it. The
Pirke Ahoth makes Simon the Just (about b.c. 290) a
member of this Great Synagogue, of which the very
existence is dubious."*
Again, the author of the forged letter at the beginning
of the Second Book of Maccabees — " the work " says
Hengstenberg, " of an arrant impostor " '" — attributes
the collection of certain books first to Nehemiah, and
' Iren., Adv. Hceres., iv. 25; Clem., Strom, i, 21, § 146; Tert., De
Cult. Fatiu, i. 3 ; Jerome, Adv. Helv., 7 ; Ps. August., De Mirab., ii.
32, etc.
- Baba Bathra, f. 13 A, \\b,
^ See Oehler, s.v. " Kanon " (Herzog, Eiicycl.).
^ Rau, De Synag. Magna, ii. 66.
* On Daniel, p. 195.
92 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
then, when they had been lost, to Judas Maccabaeus
(2 Mace. ii. 13, 14). The canonicity of the Old
Testament books does not rest on such evidence as
this,^ and it is hardly worth while to pursue it further.
That the Book of Daniel was regarded as authentic
by Josephus is clear ; but this by no means decides
its date or authorship. It is one of the very few books
of which Philo makes no mention whatever.
V. Nor can the supposed traces of the early exist-
ence of the Book be considered adequate to prove its
genuineness. With the most important of these, the
story of Josephus {Antt.^ XI. viii. 5) that the high priest
Jaddua showed to Alexander the Great the prophecies
of Daniel respecting himself, we shall deal later. The
alleged traces of the Book in Ecclesiasticus are very
uncertain, or rather wholly questionable ; and the
allusion to Daniel in i Mace. ii. 60 decides nothing,
because there is nothing to prove that the speech of
the dying Mattathias is authentic, and because we
know nothing certain as to the date of the Greek
translator of that book or of the Book of Daniel.
The absence of all allusion to the prophecies of Daniel
is, on the other hand, a far more cogent point against
the authenticity. Whatever be the date of the Books
of Maccabees, it is inconceivable that they should
offer no vestige of proof that Judas and his brothers
received any hope or comfort from such explicit pre-
dictions as Dan. xi., had the Book been in the hands
of those pious and noble chiefs.
' "Even after the Captivity," says Bishop Westcott, "the history
of the Canon, like all Jewish history up to the date of the
Maccabees, is wrapped in great obscurity. Faint traditions alone
remain to interpret results which are found realised when the dark-
ness is first cleared away " {s.v, " Canon," Smith's Diet, of Bible).
FAVOURABLE EVIDENCE UNCERTAIN 93
The First Book of Maccabees cannot be certainly
dated more than a century before Christ, nor have
we reason to believe that the Septuagint version of the
Book is much older. ^
VI. The badness of the Alexandrian version, and the
apoci'yphal additions to it, seem to be rather an argu-
ment for the late age and less established authority
of the Book than for its genuineness.^ Nor can we
attach much weight to the assertion (though it is
endorsed by the high authority of Bishop Westcott)
that "it is far more difficult to explain its composition
in the Maccabean period than to meet the peculiarities
which it exhibits with the exigencies of the Return."
So far is this from being the case that, as we have
seen already, it resembles in almost every particular
the acknowledged productions of the age in which we
believe it to have been written. Many of the state-
ments made on this subject by those who defend the
authenticity cannot be maintained. Thus Hengsten-
berg^ remarks that (i) "at this time the Messianic
hopes are dead," and (2) "that no great literary work
appeared between the Restoration from the Captivity
and the time of Christ." Now the facts are precisely
the reverse in each instance. For (i) the little book
called the Psalms of Solomon,* which belongs to this
period, contains the strongest and clearest Messianic hopes,
' See Konig, Einleit., § 80, 2.
- " In propheta Daniele Septuaginta interpretes multum ab Hebraica
veritate discordant" (Jerome, ed. Vallarsi, v. 646). In the LXX. are
first found the three apocryphal additions. For this reason the version
of Theodotion was substituted for the LXX., which latter was only
rediscovered in 1772 in a manuscript in the library of Cardinal Chigi.
^ 0)i the Authenticity of Daniel, pp. 159, 290 (E. Tr.).
^ Psalms of Sol. xvii. 36, xviii. 8, etc. See Fabric, Cod. Psendep.,
i. 917-972; Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Isr., iv. 244.1
94 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
and the Book of Enoch most closely resembles Daniel
in its Messianic predictions. Thus it speaks of the
pre-existence of the Messiah (xlviii. 6, Ixii. 7), of His
sitting on a throne of glory (Iv. 4, Ixi. 8), and receiving
the power of rule.
(ii) Still less can we attach any force to Hengsten-
berg's argument that, in the Maccabean age, the gift of
prophecy was believed to have departed for ever. In-
deed, that is an argument in favour of the pseudonymity
of the Book. For in the age at which — for purposes of
literary form — it is represented as having appeared the
spirit of prophecy was far from being dead. Ezekie]
was still living, or had died but recently. Zechariah,
Haggai, and long afterwards Malachi, were still to con-
tinue the succession of the mighty prophets of their
race. Now, if prediction be an element in the prophet's
work, no prophet, nor all the prophets together, ever
distantly approached any such power of minutely fore-
telling the events of a distant future — even the half-
meaningless and all-but-trivial events of four centuries
later, in kingdoms which had not yet thrown their
distant shadows on the horizon — as that which Daniel
must have possessed, if he were indeed the author of
this Book.^ Yet, as we have seen, he never thinks of
claiming the functions of the prophets, or speaking in
the prophet's commanding voice, as the foreteller of the
message of God. On the contrary, he adopts the com-
paratively feebler and more entangled methods of the
literary composers in an age when men saw not their
tokens and there was no prophet more.^
' Even Auberlen says {Dan., p, 3, E. Tr.), " If prophecy is any-
where a history of the future, it is here."
'■^ See Vitringa, De defedu Prophetioe post Malachicc iempora Obss.
Sacr., ii. 336.
FAVOURABLE EVIDENCE UNCERTAIN 95
We must postpone a closer examination of the ques-
tions as to the " four kingdoms " intended by the
writer, and of his curious and enigmatic chronological
calculations ; but we must reject at once the monstrous
assertion — excusable in the days of Sir Isaac Newton,
but which has now become unwise and even portentous
— that " to reject Daniel's prophecies would be to
undermine the Christian religion, which is all but
founded on his prophecies respecting Christ " ! Happily
the Christian religion is not built on such foundations
of sand. Had it been so, it would long since have been
swept away by the beating rain and the rushing floods.
Here, again, the arguments urged by those who believe
in the authenticity of Daniel recoil with tenfold force
upon themselves. Sir Isaac Newton's observations on
the prophecies of Daniel only show how little transcen-
dent genius in one domain of inquiry can save a great
thinker from absolute mistakes in another. In writing
upon prophecy the great astronomer was writing on the
assumption of baseless premisses which he had drawn
from stereotyped tradition ; and he was also writing at
an epoch when the elements for the final solution of the
problem had not as yet been discovered or elaborated.
It is as certain that, had he been living now, he would
have accepted the conclusion of all the ablest and most
candid inquirers, as it is certain that Bacon, had he now
been living, would have accepted the Copernican theory.
It is absurdly false to say that " the Christian religion
is all but founded on Daniel's prophecies respecting
Christ." If it were not absurdly false, we might well
ask, How it came that neither Christ nor His Apostles
ever once alluded to the existence of any such argu-
ment, or ever pointed to the Book of Daniel and the
prophecy of the seventy weeks as containing the least
96 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
germ of evidence in favour of Christ's mission or the
Gospel teaching ? No such argument is remotely
alluded to till long afterwards by some of the Fathers.
But so far from finding any agreement in the opinions
of the Christian Fathers and commentators on a subject
which, in Newton's view, was so momentous, we only
find ourselves weltering in a chaos of uncertainties and
contradictions. Thus Eusebius records the attempt of
some early Christian commentators to treat the last of
the seventy weeks as representing, not, like all the rest,
seven years, but seventy years, in order to bring down
the prophecy to the days of Trajan ! Neither Jewish
nor Christian exegetes have ever been able to come to
the least agreement between themselves or with one
another as to the beginning or end — the terminus a quo
or the terminus ad quern — with reference to which the
seventy weeks are to be reckoned. The Christians
naturally made great efforts to make the seventy weeks
end with the Crucifixion. But Julius Africanus ^ (f a.d.
232), beginning with the twentieth year of Artaxerxes
(Neh. ii. 1-9, b.c. 444), gets only four hundred and
seventy-five to the Crucifixion, and to escape the diffi-
culty makes the years lunar years.^
Hippolytus^ separates the last week from all tlie
' Demonstr. Evang., viii.
" Of the Jews, the LXX. translators seem to make the seventy weeks
end with A.itiochus Epiphanes ; but in Jerome's day they made the
first year of " Darius the Mede " the terminus a quo, and brought down
the terminus ad quern to Hadrian's destruction of the Temple. Saadia
the Gaon and Rashi reckon the seventy weeks from Nebuchadrezzar
to Titus, and make Cyrus the anointed one of ix. 25. Abn Ezra, on the
other hand, takes Nehemiah for " the anointed one." What can be
based on such varying and undemonstrable guesses? See Behrmann,
Dan., p. xliii.
^ Hippolytus, Fragin. in Dan. (Migne, Patr. Grcec, x.).
FAVOURABLE EVIDENCE UNCERTAIN 97
rest, and relegates it to the days of Antichrist and
the end of the world. Eusebius himself refers " the
anointed one " to the line of Jewish high priests,
separates the last week from the others, ends it with
the fourth year after the Crucifixion, and refers the
ceasing of the sacrifice (Deut. ix. 27) to the rejection
of Jewish sacrifices by God after the death of Christ.
Apollinaris makes the seventy weeks begin with the
birth of Christ, and argues that Elijah and Antichrist
were to appear a.d. 490 ! None of these views found
general acceptance.^ Not one of them was sanctioned
by Church authority. Every one, as Jerome says,
argued in this direction or that pro captii ingenii siii.
The climax of arbitrariness is reached by Keil — the last
prominent defender of the so-called " orthodoxy " of
criticism — ^when he makes the weeks not such common-
place things as "earthly chronological weeks," but Divine,
symbolic, and therefore unknown and unascertainable
periods. And are we to be told that it is on such
fantastic, self-contradictory, and mutually refuting cal-
culations that "the Christian religion is all but founded " ?
Thank God, the assertion is entirely wild.
' See Bcvan, pp. 141-145.
/
CHAPTER IX
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE AND RECEPTION INTO
THE CANON
THE reception of the Book of Daniel anywhere into
the Canon might be regarded as an argument in
favour of its authenticity, if the case of the Books of
Jonah and Ecclesiastes did not sufficiently prove that
canonicity, while it does constitute a proof of the value
and sacred significance of a book, has no weight as to
its traditional authorship. But in point of fact the
position assigned by the Jews to the Book of Daniel —
not among the Prophets, where, had the Book been
genuine, it would have had a supreme right to stand,
but only with the Book of Esther, among the latest of
the Hagiographa^ — is a strong argument for its late
date. The division of the Old Testament into Law,
Prophets, and Hagiographa first occurs in the Pro-
logue to Ecclesiasticus (about b.c. 131) — "the Law, the
Prophecies, and the rest of the books." ^ In spite of
its peculiarities, its prophetic claims among those who
accepted it as genuine were so strong that the LXX. and
the later translations unhesitatingly reckon the author
among the four greater prophets. If the Daniel of the
' Jacob Perez of Valentia accounted for this by the hatred of the
Jews for Christianitj' ! (Diestel, Gescli. d. A. T., p. 2ii).
■^ Coinp. Luke xxiv. 44; Acts xxviii. 23; Philo, De Vit. Cont., 3.
See Oehler in Herzog, s.v. " Kanon."
98
RECEPTION INTO. THE CANON 99
Captivity had written this Book, he would liave had a
far greater claim to this position among the prophets
than Haggai, Malachi, or the later Zechariah. Yet the
Jews deliberately placed the Book among the Kethubhn,
to the writers of which they indeed ascribe the Holy
Spirit {Ruach Hakhodesh), but whom they did not
credit with the higher degree of prophetic inspiration.
Josephus expresses the Jewish conviction that, since
the days of Artaxerxes onwards, the writings which
had appeared had not been deemed worthy of the same
reverence as those which had preceded them, because
there had occurred no unquestionable succession of
prophets.^ The Jews who thus decided the true nature
of the Book of Daniel must surely have been guided
by strong traditional, critical, historical, or other grounds
for denying (as they did) to the author the gift of
prophecy. Theodoret denounces this as "shameless
impudence" {avaKj^^vTiav) on their part ; ^ but may
it not rather have been fuller knowledge or simple
honesty ? At any rate, on any other grounds it would
have been strange indeed of the Talmudists to decide
that the most minutely predictive of the prophets — if
indeed this were a prophecy — wrote without the gift
of prophecy.^ It can only have been the late and
suspected appearance of the Book, and its marked
phenomena, which led to its relegation to the lowest
' Jos. c. Ap., I. 8.
- Opp. ed. Migne, ii. 1260: Et's Toaaurriv avaiaxwrlav ijXaffav ws Kal
ToO xopov Tuv 7rpo(priTCi}u tovjov d-rroa-xouH^ei.i'. He may well add, on his
view of the date, ei yap ravra t^s vpocp-qTelas aWbrpLa, Tiva. vpotp-qTeias
TO, iSia;
' Megilla, 3, I. Josephus, indeed, regards apocalyptic visions as the
highest form of prophecy {Antt., X. xi. 7) ; but the great Rabbis
Kimchi, Maimonides, Joseph Albo, ptc, are strongly against him
See Behrmann, p. xxxix.
lOo THE BOOK OF DANIEL
place in the Jewish Canon. Already in i Mace. iv. 46
we find that the stones of the demolished pagan altar
are kept " until there should arise a prophet to show
what should be done with them " ; and in i Mace,
xiv. 41 we again meet the phrase " until there should
arise a faithful prophet," Before this epoch there is
no trace of the existence of the Book of Daniel, and
not only so, but the prophecies of the post-exilic pro-
phets as to the future contemplate a wholly different
horizon and a wholly different order of events. Had
Daniel existed before the Maccabean epoch, it is im-
possible that the rank of the Book should have been
deliberately ignored. The Jewish Rabbis of the age
in which it appeared saw, quite correctly, that it had
points of affinity with other pseudepigraphic apoca-
lypses which arose in the same epoch. The Hebrew
scholar Dr. Joel has pointed out how, amid its im-
measurable superiority to such a poem as the enig-
matic Cassandra of the Alexandrian poet Lycophron,^ it
resembles that book in its indirectness of nomenclature.
Lycophron is one of the pleiad of poets in the days
of Ptolemy Philadelphus ; but his writings, like the Book
before us, have probably received interpolations from
later hands. He never calls a god or a hero by his
name, but always describes him by a periphrasis, just
as here we have " the King of the North " and ** the
King of the South," though the name " Egypt " slips
in (Dan. xi. 8). Thus Hercules is " a three-nights'
lion " (rpteo-Trepo? Xeoov), and Alexander the Great is "a
wolf." A son is always "an offshoot" {(^hvfia), or is
designated by some other metaphor. When Lycophron
' It has been described as " ein Versteck fiir Belcsciilieit, iiiid ein
grammatischcr Monstrum."
RECEPTION INTO THE CANON
wants to allude to Rome, the Greek 'P(t)fj,i] is used in
its sense of '' strength." The name Ptolemaios becomes
by anagram diro fiiXiro^;, " from honey " ; and the name
Arsinoe becomes tov"Hpa<i, " the violet of Hera." We
may find some resemblances to these procedures when
we are considering the eleventh chapter of Daniel.'
It is a serious abuse of argument to pretend, as is
done by Hengstenberg, by Dr. Pusey, and by many
of their feebler followers, that " there are few books
whose Divine authority is so fully established by the
testimony of the New Testament, and in particular by
our Lord Himself, as the Book of Daniel." ^ It is to
the last degree dangerous, irreverent, and unwise to
stake the Divine authority of our Lord on the main-
tenance of those ecclesiastical traditions of which so
many have been scattered to the winds for ever. Our
Lord, on one occasion, in the discourse on the Mount
of Olives, warned His disciples that, " when they should
see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel
the prophet, standing in the holy place, they should
flee from Jerusalem into the mountain district." '^ There
is nothing to prove that He Himself uttered either the
words " ki him thai readeth understand" or even " spoken
of by Daniel the prophet." Both of those may belong
to the explanatory narrative of the Evangelist, and the
latter does not occur in St. Mark. Further, in St.
Luke (xxi. 20) there is no specific allusion to Daniel
at all ; but instead of it we find, " When ye see Jerusalem
being encircled by armies, then know that its desola-
tion is near." We cannot be certain that the specific
reference to Daniel may not be due to the Evangelist.
' Hengstenberg, p. 209.
- Matt. xxiv. 15; Mark xiii. 14.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
But without so much as raising these questions, it is
fully admitted that, whether exactly in its present form
or not, the Book of Daniel formed part of the Canon
in the days of Christ. If He directly refers to it as
a book known to His hearers, His reference lies as
wholly outside all questions of genuineness and authen-
ticity as does St. Jude's quotation from the Book of
Enoch, or St. Paul's (possible) allusions to the Assump-
tion of Elijah,^ or Christ's own passing reference to the
Book of Jonah. Those who attempt to drag in these
allusions as decisive critical dicta transfer them to a
sphere wholly different from that of the moral applica-
tion for which they were intended. They not only
open vast and indistinct questions as to the self-imposed
limitations of our Loi'd's human knowledge as part of
His own voluntary " emptying Himself of His glory,"
but they also do a deadly disservice to the most essen-
tial cause of Christianity.'^ The only thing which is
acceptable to the God of truth is truth ; and since He
has given us our reason and our conscience as lights
which light every man who is born into the world, we
must walk by these lights in all questions which belong
to these domains. History, literature and criticism, and
the interpretation of human language do belong to the
domain of pure reason ; and we must not be bribed
by the misapplication of hypothetical exegesis tp give
them up for the support of traditional views which
advancing knowledge no longer suffers us to maintain.
It may be true or not that our Lord adopted the title
" Son of Man " {Bar EnosK) from the Book of Daniel ;
' I Cor. ii. 9 ; Eph. v. ii.
''■ Hengsten berg's reference to i Peter i. 10-12, i Thcss. ii, 3, i Cor.
vi. 2, Heb. xi. 12, deserve no further notice.
RECEPTION INTO THE CANON 103
but even if He did, which is at least disputable, that
would only show, what we all already admit, that in Mis
time the Book was an acknowledged part of the Canon.
On the other hand, if our Lord and His Apostles regarded
the Book of Daniel as containing the most explicit
prophecies of Himself and of His kingdom, why did
they never appeal or even allude to it to prove that He
was the promised Messiah ?
Again, Hengstenberg and his school try to prove
that the Book of Daniel existed before the Maccabean
age, because Josephus says that the high priest Jaddua
showed to Alexander the Great, in the year b.c. 332, the
prophecy of himself as the Grecian he-goat in the Book
of Daniel ; and that the leniency which Alexander
showed towards the Jews was due to the favourable
impression thus produced/
The story, which is a beautiful and an interesting
one, runs as follows : —
On his way from Tyre, after capturing Gaza, Alexander
decided to advance to Jerusalem. The news threw
Jaddua the high priest into an agony of alarm. He
feared that the king was displeased with the Jews, and
would inflict severe vengeance upon them. He ordered
a general supplication with sacrifices, and was encour-
aged by God in a dream to decorate the city, throw
open the gates, and go forth in procession at the head
of priests and people to meet the dreaded conqueror.
The procession, so unlike that of any other nation,
went forth as soon as they heard that Alexander was ap-
proaching the city. They met the king on the summit
of Scopas, the watch-tower — the height of Mizpah,
from which the first glimpse of the city is obtained.
' Jos., Anti., XI. viii. 5.
104 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
It is the famous Blanca Guarda of the Crusaders, on
the summit of which Richard I. turned away, and
did not deem himself worthy to glance at the city
which he was too weak to rescue from the infidel. The
Phoenicians and Chaldeans in Alexander's army promised
themselves that they would now be permitted to plunder
the city and torment the high priest to death. But it
happened far otherwise. For when the king saw the
white-robed procession approaching, headed by Jaddua
in his purple and golden array, and wearing on his
head the golden petalon, with its inscription " Holiness
to Jehovah," he advanced, saluted the priest, and
adored the Divine Name. The Jews encircled and
saluted him with unanimous greeting, while the King
of Syria and his other followers fancied that he must
be distraught. " How is it," asked Parmenio, ** that
you, whom all others adore, yourself adore the Jewish
high priest ? " "I did not adore the high priest,"
said Alexander, ** but God, by whose priesthood He has
been honoured. When I was at Dium in Macedonia,
meditating on the conquest of Asia, I saw this very
man in this same apparel, who invited me to march
boldly and without delay, and that he would conduct
me to the conquest of the Persians." Then he took
Jaddua by the hand, and in the midst of the rejoicing
priests entered Jerusalem, where he sacrificed to God.^
Jaddua showed him the prediction about himself in the
Book of Daniel, and in extreme satisfaction he granted
' There is nothing to surprise us in this circumstance, for Pto-
lemy III. {Jos. c. Ap., II. 5) and Antiochus VII. (Sidctes, Anit.,
XIII. viii. 2), Marcus Agrippa {id., XVI. ii. l), and Vitellius
{id., XVIII. V. 2>) are said to have done the same. Comp. Suet.,
Ang., 93; Tert., Apolog., 6; and other passages adduced by Schurer,
>-, § 24.
RECEPTION INTO THE CANON 105
to the Jews, at the high priest's request, all the petitions
which they desired of him.
But this stor}', so grateful to Jewish vanity, is a
transparent fiction. It does not find the least support
from any other historic source, and is evidently one of
the Jewish Haggadoth in which the intense national
self-exaltation of that strange nation delighted to depict
the homage which they, and their national religion,
extorted from the supernaturally caused dread of the
greatest heathen potentates. In this respect it resembles
the earlier chapters of the Book of Daniel itself, and
the numberless stories of the haughty superiority of
great Rabbis to kings and emperors in which the
Talmud delights. Roman Catholic historians, like Jahn
and Hess, and older writers, like Prideaux,^ accept the
story, even when they reject the fable about Sanballat
and the Temple on Gerizim which follows it. Stress
is naturally laid upon it by apologists like Hengsten-
berg ; but an historian like Grote does not vouchsafe
to notice it by a single word, and most modern writers
reject it. The Bishop of Bath and Wells thinks that
these stories are " probably derived from some apocry-
phal book of Alexandrian growth, in which chronology
and history gave way to romance and Jewish vanity."'''
All the historians except Josephus say that Alexander
went straight from Gaza to Egypt, and make no mention
of Jerusalem or Samaria ; and Alexander was by no
means ** adored " by all men at that period of his career,
for he never received 7rpo(TKvur}cri<i till after his conquest
of Persia. Nor can we account for the presence of
' Jahn, Hebr. Commonwealth, § 71 ; Hess, Gtsch., ii. 37 ; Prideaux,
Comiecfion, i. 540 ff.
- Diet. 0/ Bible, s.v. " Jaddua." See Schurer, i. 187; Van Dale,
Dissert, de LXX. Interpr., 68 ff.
io6 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
V„„
"Chaldeans" in his army at this time, for Chaldea was
then under the rule of Babylon. Besides which, Daniel
was expressly bidden, as Bleek observes, to " seal up
his prophecy till the time of the end " ; and the " time
of the end " was certainly not the era of Alexander, —
not to mention the circumstance that Alexander, if the
prophecies were pointed out to him at all, would hardly
have been content with the single verse or two about
himself, and would have been anything but gratified by
what immediately follows.^
I pass over as meaningless Mengstenberg's argu-
ments in favour of the genuineness of the Book from
the predominance of symbolism ; from the moderation
of tone towards Nebuchadrezzar ; from the political
gifts shown by the writer; and from his prediction that
the Messianic Kingdom would at once appear after the
death of Antiochus Epiphanes ! When we are told
that these circumstances "can only be explained on the
assumption of a Babylonian origin " ; that " they are
directly opposed to the spirit of the Maccabean time " ;
that the artifice with which the writing is pervaded,
supposing it to be a pseudepigraphic book, " far surpasses
the powers of the most gifted poet " ; and that " such a
distinct expectation of the near advent of the Messianic
Kingdom is utterly without analogy in the whole of
prophetic literature," — such arguments can only be
regarded as appeals to ignorance. They are either
assertions which float in the air, or are disproved at
once alike by the canonical prophets and by the apo-
cryphal literature of the Maccabean age. Symbolism
is the distinguishing characteristic of apocalypses,
' This part of the story is a mere doublet of that about Cyrus and
the prophecies of Isaiah {Antt., XI. i. 2).
RECEPTION INTO THE CANON 107
and is found in those of the late post-exilic period.
The views of the Jews about Nebuchadrezzar varied.
Some writers were partially favourable to him, others
were severe upon him. It does not in the least follow
that a writer during the Antiochian persecution, who
freely adapted traditional or imaginative elements,
should necessarily represent the old potentates as
irredeemably wicked, even if he meant to satirise
Epiphanes in the story of their extravagances. It was
necessary for his purpose to bring out the better
features of their characters, in order to show the con-
viction wrought in them by Divine interpositions. The
notion that the Book of Daniel could only have been
written by a statesman or a consummate politician is
mere fancy. And, lastly, in making the Messianic reign
begin immediately at the close of the Seleucid persecu-
tion, the writer both expresses his own faith and hope,
and follows the exact analogy of Isaiah and all the
other Messianic prophets.
But though it is common with the prophets to pass
at once from the warnings of destruction to the hopes
of a Messianic Kingdom which is to arise immediately
beyond the horizon which limits their vision, it is
remarkable — and the consideration tells strongly against
the authenticity of Daniel — that not one of them had
the least glimpse of the four successive kingdoms or
of the four hundred and ninety years ; — not even those
prophets who, if the Book of Daniel were genuine, must
have had it in their hands. To imagine that Daniel took
means to have his Book left undiscovered for some
four hundred years, and then brought to light during
the Maccabean struggle, is a grotesque impossibilit}'.
If the Book existed, it must have been known. Yet not
only is there no real trace of its existence before B.C. 167,
io8 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
but the post-exilic prophets pay no sort of regard to its
detailed predictions, and were evidently unaware that
any such predictions had ever been uttered. What
room is there for Daniel's four empires and four
hundred and ninety years in such a prophecy as Zcch.
ii. 6-13 ? The pseudepigraphic Daniel possibly took
the symbolism of four horns from Zech. i. 18, 19 ; but
there is not the slightest connexion between Zechariah's
symbol and that of the pseudo-Daniel. If the number
four in Zechariah be not a mere number of completeness
with reference to the four quarters of the world (comp.
Zech. i. 18), the four horns symbolise either Assyria,
Babylonia, Egypt, and Persia, or more generally the
nations which had then scattered Israel (Zech. ii. 8, vi.
1-8 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 9) ; so that the following promise
does not even contemplate a victorious succession of
heathen powers. Again, what room is there for Daniel's
four successive pagan empires in any natural interpreta-
tion of Haggai's "yet a little while and I will shake all
nations " (Hag. ii. 7), and in the promise that this
shaking shall take place in the lifetime of Zerubbabel
(Hag. ii. 20-23) ? And can we suppose that Malachi
wrote that the messenger of the Lord should " suddenly "
come to His Temple with such prophecies as those of
Daniel before him ? ^
But if it be thought extraordinary that a pseudepi-
graphic prophecy should have been admitted into the
Canon at all, even when placed low among the Kethubim,
and if it be argued that the Jews would never have
conferred such an honour on such a composition, the
answer is that even when compared with such fine books
'Mai. iii. i. LXX., i^al(pi'r]s ; Vulg., statint ; but it is rather
" unawares " (itffiersehcns).
RECEPTION INTO THE CANON 109
as those of Wisdom and Jesus the Son of Sirach, the
Book has a right to such a place by its intrinsic superi-
ority. Taken as a whole it is far superior in moral
and spiritual instructiveness to any of the books of the
Apocrypha. It was profoundly adapted to meet the
needs of the age in which it originated. It was in its
favour that it was written partly in Hebrew as well as
in Aramaic, and it came before the Jewish Church under
the sanction of a famous ancient name which was partly
at least traditional and historical. There is nothing
astonishing in the fact that in an age in which literature
was rare and criticism unknown it soon came to be
accepted as genuine. Similar phenomena are quite
common in much later and more comparatively learned
ages. One or two instances will suffice. Few books
have exercised a more powerful influence on Christian
literature than the spurious letters of Ignatius and the
pseudo-Clementines. They were accepted, and their
genuineness was defended for centuries ; yet in these
days no sane critic would imperil his reputation by
an attempt to defend their genuineness. The book of
the pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite was regarded as
genuine and authoritative down to the days of the
Reformation, and the author professes to have seen
the supernatural darkness of the Crucifixion ; yet
" Dionysius the Areopagite " did not write before a.d.
532 ! The power of the Papal usurpation was mainly
built on the Forged Decretals, and for centuries no one
ventured to question the genuineness and authenticity
of those gross forgeries, till Laurentius Valla exposed the
cheat and flung the tatters of the Decretals to the winds.
In the eighteenth century Ireland could deceive even the
acutest critics into the belief that his paltry Vortigern
was a rediscovered play of Shakespeare ; and a Cornish
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
clergyman wrote a ballad which even Macaulay took
for a genuine production of the reign of James II.
Those who read the Book of Daniel in the light of
Seleucid and Ptolemaic history saw that the writer
was well acquainted with the events of those days, and
that his words were full of hope, consolation, and
instruction. After a certain lapse of time they were in
no position to estimate the many indications that by
no possibility could the Book have been written in the
days of the Babylonian Exile ; nor had it yet become
manifest that all the detailed knowledge stops short
with the close of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.
The enigmatical character of the Book, and the varying
elements of its calculations, led later commentators
into the error that the fourth beast and the iron legs
of the image stood for the Roman Empire, so that they
did not expect the Messianic reign at the close of the
Greek Empire, which, in the prediction, it immediately
succeeds.^
How late was the date before the Jewish Canon
was finally settled we see from the Talmudic stories
that but for Hananiah ben-Hizkiah, with the help of
his three hundred bottles of oil burnt in nightly studies,
even the Book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed,
as being contrary to the Law {SJiabbath, i. 13, 2); and
that but for the mystic line of interpretation adopted
by Rabbi Aqiba (a.d. 120) a similar fate might have
befallen the Song of Songs {Yaddayim, c. iii. ; Mish.^ 5).
There is, then, the strongest reason to adopt the
conclusion that the Book of Daniel was the production
of one of the Chasidim towards the beginning of the
' That the fourth empire could not be the Roman has long been
seen by many critics, as far back as Grotius, L'Empereur, Chamier,
J. Voss, Bodinus, Becmann, etc. (Dicstcl, Gesch. A. T., p. 523).
RECEPTION INTO THE CANON
Maccabean struggle, and that its immediate object was
to warn the Jews against the apostasies of commenc-
ing Hellenism. It was meant to encourage the faithful,
who were waging a fierce battle against Greek influences
and against the mighty and persecuting heathen forces
by which they were supported.^ Although the writer's
knowledge of history up to the time of Alexander the
Great is vague and erroneous, and his knowledge of
the period which followed Antiochus entirely nebulous,
on the other hand his acquaintance with the period of
Antiochus Epiphanes is so extraordinarily precise as
to furnish our chief information on some points of that
king's reign. Guided by these indications, it is perhaps
possible to fix the exact year and month in which the
Book saw the light — namely, about January B.C. 164.^
From Dan. viii. 14 it seems that the author had
lived till the cleansing of the Temple after its pollution
by the Seleucid King (i Mace. iv. 42-58). For though
the Maccabean uprising is only called '* a little help '
(xi. 34), this is in comparison with the splendid future
triumph and epiphany to which he looked forward.
It is sufficiently clear from i Mace. v. 15, 16, that the
Jews, even after the early victories of Judas, were in
evil case, and that the nominal adhesion of many
Hellenising Jews to the national cause was merely
hypocritical (Dan. xi. 34).
' See Hamburger, /?^rt/-£'Hcyc/., s.v. " Geheimlehre," ii. 265. The
" Geheimlchre " (Heb., Sithr'i T ho raJi) embraces a whole region of
Jewish literature, of which the Book of Daniel forms the earliest be-
ginning. See Dan. xii. 4-9. The phrases of Dan. vii. 22 are common
in the Zohar.
■ " Plotzlich bei Antiochus IV. angekommen h5rt alle seine Wissen-
schaft auf, so dass wir, den Kalendar in den Hand, fast den Tag angeben
koniien wo dies oder jenes niedergeschrieben worden ist" (Reuss,
Gescli. d. Heil. Schrift., § 464).
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Now the Temple was dedicated on December 25th,
B.C. 165 ; and the Book appeared before the death of
Antiochus, which the writer expected to happen at the
end of the seventy weeks, or, as he calculated them,
in June 164. The king did not actually die till the close
of 164 or the beginning of 163 (i Mace. vi. 1-16)}
' For arguments in favour of this view see Cornill, Tlieol. Stud,
aus Ostpreusscn, 1889, pp. 1-32, and Einleit., p. 261. He reckons twelve
generations, sixty-nine " weeks," from the destruction of Jerusalem
to the murder of the high priest Onias III.
CHAPTER X
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
THE contents of the previous sections may be
briefly summarised.
I. The objections to the authenticity and genuineness
of Daniel do not arise, as is falsely asserted, from any
a-priori objection to admit to the full the reality either
of miracles or of genuine prediction. Hundreds of
critics who have long abandoned the attempt to main-
tain the early date of Daniel believe both in miracles
and prophecy.
II. The grounds for regarding the Book as a pseud-
epigraph are many and striking. The very Book which
would most stand in need of overwhelming evidence in
its favour is the one which furnishes the most decisive
arguments against itself, and has the least external
testimony in its support.
III. The historical errors in which it abounds tell
overwhelmingly against it. There was no deportation
in the third year of Jehoiakim ; there was no King
Belshazzar ; the Belshazzar son of Nabunaid was not
a son of Nebuchadrezzar; the names Nebuchadnezzar
and Abed-nego are erroneous in form ; there was no
" Darius the Mede " who preceded Cyrus as king and
conqueror of Babylon, though there was a later Darius,
the son of Hystaspes, who conquered Babylon ; the
demands and decrees of Nebuchadrezzar are unlike
"3 8
114 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
anything which we find in history, and show every
characteristic of the Jewish Haggada ; and the notion
that a faithful Jew could become President of the Chal-
dean Magi is impossible. It is not true that there were
only two Babylonian kings — there were five : nor
were there only four Persian kings — there were twelve.
Xerxes seems to be confounded alike with Darius
Hystaspis and Darius Codomannus as the last king
of Persia. All correct accounts of the reign, even of
Antiochus Epiphanes, seem to end about b.c. 164, and
the indications in vii. 11-14, viii. 25, xi. 40-45, do
not seem to accord with the historic realities of the
time indicated.
IV. The philological peculiarities of the Book are
no less unfavourable to its genuineness. The Hebrew
is pronounced by the majority of experts to be of a
later character than the time assumed for it. The
Aramaic is not the Babylonian East-Aramaic, but the
later Palestinian West-Aramaic. The word Kasdim
is used for " diviners," whereas at the period of the
Exile it was a national name. Persian words and titles
occur in the decrees attributed to Nebuchadrezzar. At
least three Greek words occur, of which one is certainly
of late origin, and is known to have been a favourite
instrument with Antiochus Epiphanes.
V. There are no traces of the existence of the Book
before the second century b.c.,^ although there are
abundant traces of the other books — Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
the Second Isaiah — which belong to the period of the
Exile, Even in Ecclesiasticus, while Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets are mentioned
' It is alluded to about b.c. 140 in the Sibylline Oracles (iii. 391-416),
and in i Mace. ii. 59, 60.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 115
(Ecclus, xlviii. 20-25, xlix. 6-10), not a syllable is
said about Daniel, and that although the writer erro-
neously regards prophecy as mainly concerned with
prediction. Jesus, son of Sirach, even goes out of his
way to say that no man like Joseph had risen since
Joseph's time, though the story of Daniel repeatedly
recalls that of Joseph, and though, if Dan. i.-vi. had
been authentic history, Daniel's work was far more
marvellous and decisive, and his faithfulness more
striking and continuous, than that of Joseph. The
earliest trace of the Book is in an imaginary speech of
a book written about b.c. 100 (i Mace. ii. 59, 60).
VI. The Book was admitted by the Jews into the
Canon ; but so far from being placed where, if genuine,
it would have had a right to stand — among the four
Great Prophets — it does not even receive a place among
the twelve Minor Prophets, such as is accorded to the
much shorter and far inferior Book of Jonah. It is
relegated to the Kethuhim^ side by side with such a
book as Esther. If it originated during the Babylonian
Exile, Josephus might well speak of its " undeviating
prophetic accuracy." ^ Yet this absolutely unparalleled
and even unapproached foreteller of the minute future
is not allowed by the Jews any place at all in their
prophetic Canon I In the LXX. it is treated with
remarkable freedom, and a number of other Haggadoth
are made a part of it. It resembles Old Testament
literature in very few respects, and all its peculiarities
are such as abound in the later apocalypses and
Apochrypha.^ Philo, though he quotes so frequently
' Jos., Antt., X. xi. 7.
^ Ewald (Hist, of Israel, v. 208) thinks that the author had read
Bariich in Hebrew, because Dan. ix. 4-19 is an abbreviation of
Baruch i. 15-i!. 17.
Ii5 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
both from the Prophets and the Hagiographa, does not
even allude to the Book of Daniel.
VII. Its author seems to accept for himself the view
of his age that the spirit of genuine prophecy had
departed for evermore. He speaks of himself as a
student of the older prophecies, and alludes to the
Scriptures as an authoritative Canon — Hassephorini,
^* the books." His views and practices as regards three
daily prayers towards Jerusalem (vi. ii); the import-
ance attached to Levitical rules about food (i. 8-21);
the expiatory and other value attached to alms and
fasting (iv. 24, ix. 3, x. 3) ; the angelogy involving
even the names, distinctions, and rival offices of angels ;
the form taken by the Messianic hope ; the twofold
resurrection of good and evil, — are all in close accord
with the standpoint of the second century before Christ
as shown distinctly in its literature."
VIII. When we have been led by decisive arguments
to admit the real date of the Book of Daniel, its place
among the Hagiographa confirms all our conclusions.
The Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa represent,
as Professor Sanday has pointed out, three layers or
stages in the history of the collection of the Canon.
If the Book of Chronicles was not accepted among the
Histories (which were designated "The Former Pro-
phets "), nor the Book of Daniel among the Greater or
Lesser Prophets, the reason was that, at the date when
the Prophets were formally collected into a division
of the Canon, these books were not yet in existence,
or at any rate had not been accepted on the same level
with the other books. ^
' Psalm Ixxiv. 9; i Mace. iv. 46, ix. 27, xiv. 41.
^ See Cornill, Einleit., pp. 257-260.
* Sanday, Inspiration, p. loi. Tlie name of "Earlier Prophets"
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 117
IX. All these circumstances, and others which have
been mentioned, have come home to earnest, unpreju-
diced, and profoundly learned critics with so irresistible
a force, and the counter-arguments which are adduced
are so little valid, that the defenders of the genuineness
are now an ever-dwindling body, and many of them
can only support their basis at all by the hypothesis of
interpolations or twofold authorship. Thus C. v. Orelli^
can only accept a modified genuineness, for which he
scarcely offers a single argument ; but even he resorts
to the hypothesis of a late editor in the Maccabean age
who put together the traditions and general prophecies
of the real Daniel. He admits that without such a sup-
position— by which it does not seem that we gain much
— the Book of Daniel is wholly exceptional, and without
a single analogy in the Old Testament. And he clearly
sees that all the rays of the Book are focussed in the
struggle against Antiochus as in their central point,"
and that the best commentary on the prophetic section
of the Book is the First Book of Maccabees.^
X. It may then be said with confidence that the
critical view has finally won the day. The human
mind will in the end accept that theory which covers
was given to the two Books of Samuel, of Kings, and of Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel ; and the twelve Minor Prophets (the latter
regarded as one book) were called "The Later Prophets." Cornill
places the collection of the Prophets into the Canon about B.C. 250.
' Alttestanient. Weissagiing, pp. 513-530 (Vienna, 1882).
'■* " Alle strahlen des Buches sich in dieser Epoche als in ihrem
Brennpunkte vereinigen " (C. v. Orelli, p. 514).
' Compare the following passages : Unclean meats, i Mace. i. 62-64,
" Many in Israel were fully resolved not to eat any unclean thing,"
etc. ; 2 Mace. vi. 18-31, vii. 1-42. The decrees of Nebuchadrezzar
(Dan. iii. 4-6) and Darius (Dan. vi. 6-9) with the proceedings of
Antiochus (I Mace. i. 47-51). Belshazzar's profane use of the
Temple vessels (Dan, v. 2) with i Mace. i. 23 ; 2 Mace. v. 16, etc.
ii8 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
the greatest number of facts, and harmonises best with
the sum-total of knowledge. Now, in regard to the
Book of Daniel, these conditions appear to be far better
satisfied by the supposition that the Book was written
in the second century than in the sixth. The history,
imperfect as to the pseudepigraphic date, but very precise
as it approaches b.c. 176-164, the late characteristics
which mark the language, the notable silence respect-
ing the Book from the sixth to the second century, and
its subsequent prominence and the place which it
occupies in the Kethubim, are arguments which few
candid minds can resist. The critics of Germany, even
the most moderate, such as Delitzsch, Cornill, Riehm,
Strack, C. v. Orelli, Meinhold, are unanimous as to the
late date of, at any rate, the prophetic section of the
Book ; and even in the far more conservative criticism
of England there is no shadow of doubt on the subject
left in the minds of such scholars as Driver, Cheyne,
Sanday, Bevan, and Robertson Smith. Yet, so far
from detracting from the value of the Book, we add to
its real value and to its accurate apprehension when
we regard it, not as the work of a prophet in the Exile,
but of some faithful Chasid in the days of the Seleucid
tyrant, anxious to inspire the courage and console the
sufferings of his countrymen. Thus considered, the
Book presents some analogy to St. Augustine's City
of God. It sets forth, in strong outlines, and with
magnificent originality and faith, the contrast between
the kingdoms of this world and the kingdoms of our
God and of His Christ, to which the eternal victory
has been foreordained from the foundation of the world.
In this respect we must compare it with the Apoca-
l3^pse. Antiochus Epiphanes was an anticipated Nero
And just as the agonies of the Neronian persecutions
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 119
wrung from the impassioned spirit of St. John the
Divine those visions of glory and that denunciation of
doom, in order that the hearts of Christians in Rome
and Asia might be encouraged to the endurance of
martyrdom, and to the certain hope that the irresistible
might of their weakness would ultimately shake the
world, so the folly and fury of Antiochus led the holy
and gifted Jew who wrote the Book of Daniel to set
forth a similar faith, partly in Haggadoth, which may,
to some extent, have been drawn from tradition, and
partly in prophecies, of which the central conception
was that which all history teaches us — namely, that
" for every false word and unrighteous deed, for
cruelty and oppression, for lust and vanity, the price
has to be paid at last, not always by the chief offenders,
but paid by some one. Justice and truth alone endure
and live. Injustice and oppression may be long-lived,
but doomsday comes to them at last."^ And when
that doom has been carried to its ultimate issues, then
begins the Kingdom of the Son of Man, the reign of
God's Anointed, and the inheritance of the earth by
the Saints of God.
' Froude, Short Studies, i. 17.
PART II
COMMENTARY ON THE HISTORIC SECTION
CHAPTER I
THE PRELUDE
"His loj'alty he kept, his faith, his love.' — Milton.
THE first chapter of the Book of Daniel serves as
a beautiful introduction to the whole, and strikes
the -keynote of faithfulness to the institutions of Judaism
which of all others seemed most important to the mind
of a pious Hebrew in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.
At a time when many were wavering, and many had
lapsed into open apostasy, the writer wished to set
before his countr3aiien in the most winning and vivid
manner the nobleness and the reward of obeying God
rather than man.
He had read in 2 Kings xxiv. i, 2, that Jehoiakim
had been a vassal of Nebuchadrezzar for three years,
which were not, however, the first three years of his
reign, and then had rebelled, and been subdued by
"bands of the Chaldeans" and their allies. In
2 Chron. xxxvi, 6 he read that Nebuchadrezzar had
" bound Jehoiakim in fetters to carry him to Babylon." ^
Combining these two passages, he seems to have
inferred, in the absence of more accurate historical
indications, that the Chaldeans had besieged and cap-
tured Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim. That
the date is erroneous there can hardly be a question,
' Comp, Jer. xxii. i8, 19, xxxvi. 30.
123
\H THE BOOK OF DANIEL
for, as already stated/ neither Jeremiah, the con-
temporary of Jehoiakim, nor the Book of Kings, nor
any other authority, knows anything of any siege of
Jerusalem by the Babylonian King in the third year of
Jehoiakim. The Chronicler, a very late writer, seems
to have heard some tradition that Jehoiakim had been
taken captive, but he does not date this capture ; and
in Jehoiakim's third year the king was a vassal, not
of Babylon, but of Egypt. Nabopolassar, not Nebu-
chadrezzar, was then King of Babylon. It was not till
the following year (b.c, 605), when Nebuchadrezzar,
acting as his father's general, had defeated Egypt at
the Battle of Carchemish, that any siege of Jerusalem
would have been possible. Nor did Nebuchadrezzar
advance against the Holy City even after the Battle
of Carchemish, but dashed home across the desert to
secure the crown of Babylon on hearing the news of
his father's death. The only two considerable Baby-
lonian deportations of which we know were apparently
in the eighth and nineteenth years of Nebuchadrezzar's
reign. In the former Jehoiachin was carried captive
with ten thousand citizens (2 Kings xxiv. 14-16; Jer.
xxvii. 20) ; in the latter Zedekiah was slain, and eight
hundred and thirty-two persons carried to Babylon (Jer.
lii, 29 ; 2 Kings xxv. ii).^
There seems then to be, on the very threshold, every
indication of an historic inaccuracy such as could not
have been committed if the historic Daniel had been
the true author of this Book ; and we are able, with
' See supra, p. 45.
'' Jeremiah (lii. 28-30) mentions three deportations, in the seventh,
eighteenth, and twenty-third year of Nebuchadrezzar; but there are
great difficulties about the historic verification, and the paragraph
(which is of doubtful genuineness) is omitted by the LXX.
THE PRELUDE 125
perfect clearness, to point to the passages by which the
Maccabean writer was misled into a mistaken inference/
To him, however, as to all Jewish writers, a mere
variation in a date would have been regarded as a
matter of the utmost insignificance. It in no way
concerned the high purpose which he had in view, or
weakened the force of his moral fiction. Nor does it
in the smallest degree diminish from the instructiveness
of the lessons which he has to teach to all men for all
time. A fiction which is true to human experience
may be as rich in spiritual meaning as a literal history.
Do we degrade the majesty of the Book of Daniel if we
regard it as a Haggada any more than we degrade the
story of the Prodigal Son when we describe it as a
Parable ?
The writer proceeds to tell us that, after the siege,
Nebuchadrezzar — whom the historic Daniel could never
' The manner in which the maintainers of the genuineness get over
this difficulty is surely an instance of such special pleading as can
convince no unbiassed inquirer. They conjecture (l) that Nebu-
chadrezzar had been associated with his father, and received the
title of king before he really became king; (2) that by "came to
Jerusalem and besieged it" is meant "set out torynr«/s Jerusalem, so
that (ultimately) he besieged it"; (3) and that a vague and undated
allusion in the Book of Chronicles, and a vague, unsupported, and
evidently erroneous assertion in Berossus — quoted by Josephus,
Anft., X. xi. I ; c. Ap., I. 19, who lived some two and a half centuries
after these events, and who does not mention any siege of Jerusalem —
can be so interpreted as to outweigh the fact that neither con-
temporary histories nor contemporary records know anything of this
supposed deportation. Jeremiah (xxv. l) says correctly that " the
fourth year of Jehoiakim" was "the first year of Nebuchadrezzar '' ;
and had Jerusalem been already captured and plundered, it is
impossible that he should not have alluded to the fact in that chapter.
An older subterfuge for " explaining " the error is that of Saadia the
Gaon, Abn Ezra, Rashi, etc., who interpret "the third year of Jehoia-
kim " to mean " the third year after his rebellion from Nebuchadrezzar,"
which is not only impossible in itself, but also contradicts Dan. ii. I.
126 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
have called by the erroneous name Nebuchadwezzar —
took Jehoiakim (for this seems to be implied), with some
of the sacred vessels of the Temple (comp. v, 2, 3),
into the land of Shinar,^ to the house of his god." This
god, as we learn from Babylonian inscriptions, was
Bel or Bel-merodach, in whose temple, built by
Nebuchadrezzar, was also "the treasure-house of his
kingdom." ^
Among the captives were certain " of the king's seed,
and of the princes " (Parthemim).^ They were chosen
from among such boys as were pre-eminent for their
beaut}' and intelligence, and the intention was to train
them as pages in the ro3'al service, and also in such
a knowledge of the Chaldean language and literature
as should enable them to take their places in the learned
caste of priestly diviners. Their home was in the vast
palace of the Babylonian King, of which the ruins arc
now called Kasr. Here they may have seen the hap-
less Jehoiachin still languishing in his long captivity.
They are called " children," and the word, together
with the context, seems to imply that they were boys
of the age of from twelve to fourteen. The king per-
sonally handed them over to the care of Ashpenaz,* the
' Shinar is an archaism, supposed by Schrader to be a corruption of
Sumir, or Northern Chaldea {Keilinschr., p. 34) ; but see Hommel,
Gcsch. Bab. it. Assyr., 220; F. Delitzsch, Assyr. Gram., 115. The
more common name in the exilic period was Babel (Jer. li. 9, etc.)
or Eretz Kasdim (Ezek. xii. 13).
-On this god — Marduk or Maruduk (Jer. 1. 2) — comp. 2 Chron.
xxxvi. 7, See Schrader, K, A.T., pp. 273,276; and Riehm, Hand'
worterb., ii. 982.
' This seems to be a Persian word, fratama, " first." It is only
found in Esther. Josephus says that the four boys were connected
with Zedckiah (Anil., X. x. I). Comp. Jer. xli. i.
* Dan. i. 3 ; LXX,, 'A^iea-SpL The name is of quite uncertain deriva-
tion. Lcnormant connects it with Abai-Istar, " astronomer of the
THE PRELUDE 127
Rabsaris, or " master of the eunuchs," who held the
position of lord high chamberlain.* It is probably
implied that the boys were themselves made eunuchs,
for the incident seems to be based on the rebuke given
by Isaiah to the vain ostentation of Hezekiah in showing
the treasures of his temple and palace to Merodach-
baladan : " Behold the days come, that all that is in
thine house . . . shall be carried to Babylon : nothing
shall be left, saith the Lord. And of thy sons that shall
issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take
away ; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the
King of Babylon."^
They were to be trained in the learning (lit. " the
book ") and language of Chaldea for three years ; at the
end of which period they were to be admitted into the
king's presence, that he might see how they looked
and what progress they had made. During those three
years he provided them with a daily maintenance of
food and wine from his table. Those who were thus
maintained in Eastern courts were to be counted by
hundreds, and even by thousands, and their position
was often supremely wretched and degraded, as it still
is in such Eastern courts. The wine was probably
goddess Istar " {La Divination, p. 182). Hitzig sees in this strange
rendering Abiesdri the meaning "eunuch." A eunuch could have no
son to help him, so that his father is his help i^ezer). Ephraem
Syrus, in his Commentary, preserves both names (Schleusner, Tlu-
sanriis, s.v. 'A^Ucrep). We find the name Ash^enaz in Gen. x. 3,
Theodot. has 'A.a<pavi^. Among other guesses Lenormant makes
Ashpenaz = Assa-ibni-zir. Dr. Joel {Notizen ztini Bitche Daniel, p. 17)
says that since the Vulgate reads Abriesri, '' ob nicht der Wort von
rechts zu links gelesen miisste ? "
' Called in i. 7-1 1 the Sar-hassarisim (comp. Jer. xxxix. 3; Gen.
xxxvii. 36, tnai-g. ; 2 Kings xviii. 17; Esther ii, 3). This officer now
bears the title of Gyzlar Agha.
^ Isa. xxxix. 6, 7.
128 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
imported. The food consisted of meat, game, fish, joints,
and wheaten bread. The word used for " provision "
is interesting. It is path-bag, and seems to be a trans-
literation, or echo of a Persian word, patibaga (Greek
trori^a^ii), a name apphed by the historian Deinon
(B.C. 340) to barley bread and " mixed wine in a golden
egg from which the king drinks." ^
But among these captives were four young Jews
named Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.
Their very names were a witness not only to their
nationality, but to their religion. Daniel means ** God
is my judge " ; Hananiah, " Jehovah is gracious " ;
Mishael (perhaps), " who is equal to God ? " - Azariah,
" God is a helper."
It is hardly likel}^ that the Chaldeans would have
tolerated the use of such names among their young
pupils, since every repetition of them would have
sounded like a challenge to the supremacy of Bel,
Merodach, and Nebo. It was a common thing to
change names in heathen courts, as the name of Joseph
' Athen., Deipnos, xi. 583. See Bevan, p. 60 ; Max Muller in
Pusey, p. 565. How Professor Fuller can urge the presence of these
Persian words in proof of the genuineness of Daniel {Speakers Com-
nten/aiy, p. 250) I cannot understand. For Daniel does not seem to
have survived beyond the third year of the Persian dominion, and it
is extremely difficult to suppose that all these Persian words, includ-
ing titles of Nebuchadrezzar's officials, were already current among
the Babylonians. On the other hand, Babylonian words seem to be
rare, though Daniel is represented as living nearly the whole of a
long life in Babylon. There is no validity in the argument that these
words could not have been known in the da^'s of the Maccabees,
" for half of them are common in Syria, though the oldest extant
Syriac writers are later by three centuries than the time of the Mac-
cabees" (Bevan, p. 41).
'^ The name Daniel occurs among Ezra's contemporaries in Ezra
viii. 2 ; Neh. x. 7, and the other names in Neh. viii. 4, x. 3, 24 .
I Esdras ix. 44.
THE PRELUDE 129
had been changed by the Egyptians to Zaphnath-
paaneah (Gen. xli. 45), and the Assyrians changed the
name of Psammetichus II. into Nebo-serib-ani, " Nebo
save me." They therefore made the names of the boys
echo the names of the Babylonian deities. Instead of
" God is my judge," Daniel was called Belteshazzar,
" protect Thou his life." ^ Perhaps the prayer shows
the tender regard in which he was held by Ashpenaz.
Hananiah was called Shadrach, perhaps Shudur-aku,
** command of Aku," the moon-deity ; Mishael was
called Meshach, a name which we cannot interpret ; '^
and Azariah, instead of ** God is a help," was called
Abed-nego, a mistaken form for Abed-nebo, or "servant
of Nebo."^ Even in this slight incident there may be
an allusion to Maccabean days. It appears that in that
epoch the apostate Hellenising Jews were fond of
changing their names into Gentile names, which had
a somewhat similar sound. Thus Joshua was called
" Jason," and Onias " Menelaus." * This was done as
' BalatsH-utsur. The name in this form had nothing to do with Bel,
as the writer of Daniel seems to have supposed (Dan. iv. 5), nor yet
with Beltis, the wife of Bel. See supra, p. 47. Comp. the names
Nabusarutsur, Sinsarutsur, Assursariitsur, Also comp. Inscy. Seniit.,
ii. 38, etc. Pseudo-Epiphanius says that Nebuchadrezzar meant
Daniel to be co-heir with his son Belshazzar.
- F. Delitzsch calls Meshach vox hybrida. Neither " Shadrach "
nor " Meshach " occurs on the monuments. " That the imposition of
names is a symbol of mastership over slaves is plain " (S. Chrys.,
Opp., iii. 21 ; Pusey, p. 16). Comp. 2 Kings xxiii. 34 (Egyptians) ;
xxiv. 17 (Babylonians) ; Ezra v. 14, Esther ii. 7 (Persians).
* Comp. Obadiah, Abdiel, Abdallah, etc. Schrader says, p. 429:
"The supposition that Nebo was altered to Nego, out of a con-
tumelious desire (which Jews often displayed) to alter, avoid, and
insult the names of idols, is out of place, since the other names are
not altered."
* Jos., Antt., XII. V. I ; Derenbourg, Palestine, p. 34; Ewald, Hist.,
V. 294 (E. Tr.) ; IMunk, Palestine, p. 495, etc.
9
130 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
part of the plan of Antiochus to force upon Palestine
the Greek language. So far the writer may have
thought the practice a harmless one, even though im-
posed by heathen potentates. Such certainly was the
view of the later Jews, even of the strictest sect of the
Pharisees. Not only did Saul freely adopt the name
of Paul, but Silas felt no scruple in being called by the
name Sylvanus, though that was the name of a heathen
deity.
It was far otherwise with acquiescence in the eating
of heathen meats, which, in the days of the Maccabees,
was forced upon many of the Jews, and which, since
the institution or reinstitution of Levitism after the
return from the Exile, had come to be regarded as a
deadly sin. It was during the Exile that such feelings
had acquired fresh intensity. At first they do not
seem to have prevailed. Jehoiachin was a hero among
the Jews. They remembered him with intense love
and pity, and it does not seem to have been regarded
as any stain upon his memory that, for 3'ears together,
he had, almost in the words of Dan. i. 5, received a
daily allowance from the table of the King of Babylon.^
In the days of Antiochus Epiphanes the ordinary
feeling on this subject was very different, for the
religion and nationality of the Jews were at stake.
Hence we read : " Howbeit many in Israel were fully
resolved and confirmed in themselves not to eat any
unclean thing. Wherefore they chose rather to die,
that they might not be defiled with meats, that they might
not profane the holy covenant: so then they died."'
' See Ewald, Gesch. Isr., vi. 654. "They shall eat unclean things
in Assyria" (Hosea ix. 3). "The children of Israel shall eat their
defiled bread among the Gentiles" (Ezek. iv. 13, 14).
'^ I Mace. i. 62, 63.
THE PRELUDE
And in the Second Book of Maccabees we are told
that on the king's birthday Jews " were constrained
by bitter constraint to eat of the sacrifices," and that
Eleazar, one of the principal scribes, an aged and
noble-looking man, preferred rather to be tortured to
death, "leaving his death for an example of noble
courage, and a memorial of value, not only unto young
men, but unto all his nation." ^ In the following chapter
is the celebrated story of the constancy and cruel death
of seven brethren and their mother, when they pre-
ferred martyrdom to tasting swine's flesh. The brave
Judas Maccabaeus, with some nine companions, with-
drew himself into the wilderness, and "lived in the
mountains after the manner of beasts with his company,
who fed on herbs continually, lest they should be
partakers of the pollution." The tone and object of
these narratives are precisely the same as the tone and
object of the stories in the Book of Daniel ; and we
can well imagine how the heroism of resistance would
be encouraged in every Jew who read those narratives
or traditions of former days of persecution and difficulty.
" This Book," says Ewald, " fell like a glowing spark
from a clear heaven upon a surface which was already
intensely heated far and wide, and waiting to burst
into flames." -
It may be doubtful whether such views as to cere-
monial defilement were already developed at the be-
' 2 Mace. vi. 18-31. Comp. the LXX. addition to Esther iv. 14,
V. 4, where she is made to plead before God that she had not tasted
of the table of Haman or of the king's banquet. So Judith takes
" clean " bread with her into the camp of Holofernes (Judith x. 5),
and Judas and his followers live on herbs in the desert (2 Mace. v. 27).
The Mishnah even forbids to take the bread, oil, or milk of the
heathen.
2 Prophets of the O. T., p. 184 (E. Tr.).
132 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
ginning of the Babylonian Captivity.^ The Maccabean
persecution left them ingrained in the habits of the
people, and Josephus tells us a contemporary story
which reminds us of that of Daniel and his companions.
He says that certain priests, who were friends of his
own, had been imprisoned in Rome, and that he en-
deavoured to procure their release, " especially because
I was informed that they were not unmindful of piety
towards God, but supported themselves with figs and
nuts," because in such eating of dry food {^rjpo^a^iay
as it was called) there was no chance of heathen
defilement." It need hardly be added that when the time
came to break down the partition-wall which separated
Jewish particularism from the universal brotherhood
of mankind redeemed in Christ, the Apostles — especially
St. Paul — had to show the meaningless nature of many
distinctions to which the Jews attached consummate
importance. The Talmud abounds in stories intended
to glorify the resoluteness with which the Jews main-
tained their stereotyped Levitism ; but Christ taught,
to the astonishment of the Pharisees and even of the
disciples, that it is not what entereth into a man which
makes him unclean, but the unclean thoughts which
come from within, from the heart.^ And this He said,
KuOapi^wv ircLvra ra ^pco/juaTa — ie., abolishing thereby
the Levitic Law, and " making all meats clean." Yet,
even after this, it required nothing less than that Divine
' Mr. Bevan saj's that the verb for "defile" (7N3), as a ritual term
for the idea of ceremonial unclcanness, is post-exilic ; the Pentateuch
and Ezekicl used XDD {Comment., p. 6l). The idea intended is that
the three boys avoided meat which might have been killed with
the blood and oflcred to idols, and therefore was not Kasliar (Exod.
xxxiv. 15).
- Jos., Vit., iii. Comp. Isa. Hi. il.
Mark vii. 19 (according to the true reading and translation).
THE PRELUDE 133
vision on the tanner's roof at Joppa to convince Peter
that he was not to call " common " what God had
cleansed/ and it required all the keen insight and
fearless energy of St. Paul to prevent the Jews from
keeping an intolerable yoke upon their own necks,
and also laying it upon the necks of the Gentiles.^
The four princely boys — they may have been from
twelve to fourteen years old '' — determined not to share
in the royal dainties, and begged the Sar-hassarisim to
allow them to live on pulse and water, rather than on
the luxuries in which — for them — lurked a heathen
pollution. The eunuch not unnaturally demurred. The
daily rations were provided from the ro^'al table. He
was responsible to the king for the beauty and health,
as well as for the training, of his young scholars ; and
if Nebuchadrezzar saw them looking more meagre or
haggard * than the rest of the captives and other pages,
the chamberlain's head might pay the forfeit.* But
Daniel, like Joseph in Egypt, had inspired affection
among his captors ; and since the prince of the eunuchs
regarded him " with favour and tender love," he was
the more willing to grant, or at least to connive at, the
fulfilment of the boy's wish. So Daniel gained over
the Melzar (or steward ?)," who was in immediate
charge of the boys, and begged him to try the experi-
ment for ten days. If at the end of that time their
' Acts X. 14.
- I Cor. xi. 25. This rigorism was specially valued by the Essenes
and Therapeutae. See Derenbourg, Palestine, note, vi.
'•' Plato, Alcib., i. 37; Xen., Cyrop., i. 2. Youths entered the king's
service at the age of seventeen.
* Lit. "sadder." LXX., aKvdpunroL
^ LXX., Ki.vdvve^crij} r!^ iSiq) rpaxTjXw.
"* Perhaps the Assyrian matsisara, "guardian" (Delitzsch). There
are various other guesses (Behrmann, p. 5),
134 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
health or beauty had suffered, the question might be
reconsidered.
So for ten days the four faithful children were fed
on water, and on the *' seeds " — ?>., vegetables, dates,
raisins, and other fruits, which are here generally called
" pulse." ^ At the end of the ten days — a sort of mystic
Persian week - — they were found to be fairer and
fresher than all the other captives of the palace.^
Thenceforth they were allowed without hindrance to
keep the customs of their country.
Nor was this all. During the three probationary
years they continued to flourish intellectually as well
as physically. They attained to conspicuous excellence
" in all kinds of books and wisdom," and Daniel also
had understanding in all kinds of dreams and visions,
to which the Chaldeans attached supreme importance.*
The Jews exulted in these pictures of four youths of
their own race who, though they were strangers in
a strange land, excelled all their alien compeers in their
own chosen fields of learning. There were already two
' Heb., D''LnT ; LXX., aTrtpfj.aTa; Vulg., Icgumitia. Abn Ezra took
the word to mean "rice." Comp. Deut. xii. 15, 16; I Sam. xvii. 17, 18.
Comp. Josephus {Vit., iii.), who tells iis how the Jewish priests,
prisoners in Rome, fed on ffvKoi's koI Kaptjois.
^ Ewald, Antiquities, p. 131 f.
' Pusey(p. 17) quotes from Chardin's notes in Harmer (^Obs., lix.) :
" I have remarked that the countenance of the Kcchicks (monks)
are, in fact, more rosy and smooth than those of others, and that those
who fast much are, notwithstanding, very beautiful, sparkling with
health, with a clear and lively countenance."
* The Chartntnmiin are like the Egyptian lepoypa/x/jLarels. It is
difficult to conceive that there was less chance of pollution in being
elaborately trained in heathen magic and dream-interpretation than
in eating Babylonian food. But this was, so to speak, extra fabulatn.
It did not enter into the writer's scheme of moral edification. If,
however, the story is meant to imply that these youths accepted the
THE PRELUDE 135
such pictures in Jewish history, — that of the youthful
Moses, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,
and a great man and a prince among the magicians of
Pharaoh ; and that of Joseph, who, though there were
so many Egyptian diviners, alone could interpret dreams,
whether in the dungeon or at the foot of the throne.
A third picture, that of Daniel at the court of Babylon,
is now added to them, and in all three cases the glory
is given directly, not to them, but to the God of heaven,
the God of their fathers.
At the close of the three years the prince of the
eunuchs brought all his young pages into the presence
of the King Nebuchadrezzar. He tested them by
familiar conversation,^ and found the four Jewish lads
superior to all the rest. They were therefore chosen
** to stand before the king " — in other words, to become
his personal attendants. As this gave free access to
his presence, it involved a position not only of high
honour, but of great influence. And their superiority
stood the test of time. Whenever the king consulted
heathen training, though (as we know from tablets and inscriptions)
the incantations, etc., in which it abounded were intimately connected
with idolatrj', and were entirely unharmed by it, this may indicate
that the writer did not disapprove of the " Greek training " which
Antiochus tried to introduce, so far as it merelj' involved an acquaint-
ance with Greek learning and literature. This is the view of Gratz.
If so, the writer belonged to the more liberal Jewish school which did
not object to a study of the Chokmalh Javanlth, or " Wisdom of
Javan " (Derenbourg, Palestine, p. 361).
' LXX., i\d\ri(re /xer atjrQv. Considering the normal degradation of
pages at Oriental courts, of which Rycaut (referred to by Pusey, p. 18)
"gives a horrible account," their escape from the corruption around
them was a blessed reward of their faithfulness. They may now have
been seventeen, the age for entering the king's service (Xen., Cyrop.,
I. ii. 8). On the ordinary curse of the rule of eunuchs at Eastern
courts see an interesting note in Pusey, p. 21.
136 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
them on matters which required " wisdom of under-
standing/' he found them not only better, but " ten
times better," than all the "magicians" and "astrolo-
gers " that were in all his realm. ^
The last verse of the chapter, " And Daniel continued
even unto the first year of King Cyrus," is perhaps
a later gloss, for it appears from x. i that Daniel lived,
at any rate, till the ihird year of Cyrus. Abn Ezra adds
the words "continued in Babv/on," and Ewald "at the
king's court." Some interpret " continued " to mean
" remained alive." The reason for mentioning " the
first year of Cyrus " may be to show that Daniel sur-
vived the return from the Exile," and also to mark the
fact that he attained a great age. For if he were about
fourteen at the beginning of the narrative, he would
be eighty-five in the first year of Cyrus. Dr. Pusey
remarks : " Simple words, but what a volume of tried
faithfulness is unrolled by them ! Amid all the intrigues
indigenous at all times in dynasties of Oriental despotism,
amid all the envy towards a foreign captive in high
office as a king's councillor, amid all the trouble inci-
dental to the insanity of the king and the murder of
two of his successors, in that whole critical period for
his people, Daniel continued." ^
The domestic anecdote of this chapter, like the other
more splendid narratives which succeed it, has a value
far beyond the circumstances in which it may have
originated. It is a beautiful moral illustration of the
blessings which attend on faithfulness and on temper-
ance, and whether it be an Haggada or an historic
tradition, it equally enshrines the same noble lesson as
' On the names see Gesenius, Isaiah, ii. 355.
- Alluded to in ix. 25.
^ Daniel, pp. 20, 21.
THE PRELUDE I37
that which was taught to all time by the early stories
of the Books of Genesis and Exodus.^
It teaches the trown and blessing of faithfulness.
It was the highest glory of Israel "to uplift among
the nations the banner of righteousness." It matters
not that, in this particular instance, the Jewish boys
were contending for a mere ceremonial rule which in
itself was immaterial, or at any rate of no eternal
significance. Suffice it that this rule presented itself
to them in the guise of a principle and of a sacred duty,
exactly as it did to Eleazar the Scribe, and Judas the
Maccabee, and the Mother and her seven strong sons
in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. They regarded it
as a duty to their laws, to their country, to their God ;
and therefore upon them it was sacredly incumbent.
And they were faithful to it. Among the pampered
minions and menials of the vast Babylonian palace —
undazzled by the glitter of earthly magnificence, un-
tempted by the allurements of pomp, pleasure, and
sensuous indulgence —
"Amid innumerable false, unmoved,
Unshaken, unseduced, unterrified,
Their loj'alty they kept, their faith, their love."
And because God loves them for their constancy,
because they remain pure and true, all the Babylonian
varletry around them learns the lesson of simplicity,
the beauty of holiness. Amid the outpourings of the
Divine favour they flourish, and are advanced to the
highest honours. This is one great lesson which
dominates the historic section of this Book : " Them
that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise
' Comp. Gen. xxxix. 21 ; i Kings viii. 50; Neh. i. i; Psalm
cvi. 46,
ijS THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Me shall be lightly esteemed." It is the lesson of
Joseph's superiority to the glamour of temptation in the
house of Potiphar ; of the choice of Moses, preferring to
suffer affliction with the people of God rather than all
the treasures of Egypt and " to be called the son of
Pharaoh's daughter " ; of Samuel's stainless innocence
beside the corrupting example of Eli's sons ; of David's
strong, pure, ruddy boyhood as a shepherd-lad on
Bethlehem's hills, It is the anticipated story of that
3'et holier childhood of Him who— subject to His
parents in the sweet vale of Nazareth — blossomed
" like the flower of roses in the spring of the year, and
as lilies by the water-courses." The 3'Oung human
being who grows up in innocence and self-control grows
up also in grace and beauty, in wisdom and " in favour
with God and man." The Jews specially delighted in
these pictures of bo3'ish continence and piety, and they
lay at the basis of all that was greatest in their national
character.
But there also lay incidentally in the story a warning
against corrupting luxury, the lesson of the need for,
and the healthfulness of,
"The rule of not too much by temperance taught."
" The love of sumptuous food and delicious drinks is
never good," says Ewald, " and with the use of the
most temperate diet body and soul can flourish most
admirably, as. experience had at that time sufficiently
taught."
To the value of this lesson the Nazarites among the
Jews were a perpetual witness. Jeremiah seems to
single them out for the special beauty which resulted
from their youthful abstinence when he writes of
Jerusalem, " Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they
THE PRELUDE 139
were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body
than rubies, their polishing was of sapphires." ^
It is the lesson which Milton reads in the story of
Samson, —
"O madness! to think use of strongest wines
And strongest drinks our chief support of health,
When God, with these forbidden, made choice to rear
His mighty champion, strong above compare,
Whose drink was only from the liquid brook!"
It is the lesson which Shakespeare inculcates when
he makes the old man say in As You Like It, —
"When I was young I never did apply
Hot and rebellious liquors in my blood,
Nor did not with unblushful forehead woo
The means of weakness and debility ;
Therefore mine age is as a lusty winter,
Frosty, yet kindly."
The writer of this Book connects intellectual advance
as well as physical strength with this abstinence, and
here he is supported even by ancient and pagan experi-
ence. Something of this kind may perhaps lurk in the
apiarrov fiev vScop of Pindar ; and certainly Horace sa\V
that gluttony and repletion are foes to insight when he
wrote, —
" Nam corpus onustum
Hesternis vitiis animum quoque praegravat una,
Atque affigit humo divinse particulam aurae."^
Pythagoras was not the only ancient philosopher who
recommended and practised a vegetable diet, and even
Epicurus, whom so many regard as
"The soft garden's rose-encircled child,"
placed over his garden door the inscription that those
' Lam. iv. 7. =* Hor., Saf., II. ii. 77.
140 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
who came would only be regaled on barle3^-cakes and
fresh water, to satisfy, but not to allure, the appetite.
But the grand lesson of the picture is meant to be
that the fair Jewish boys were kept safe in the midst of
every temptation to self-indulgence, because they lived
as in God's sight : and " he that holds himself in rever-
ence and due esteem for the dignity of God's image
upon him, accounts himself both a fit person to do the
noblest and godliest deeds, and much better worth than
to deject and defile, with such debasement and pollu-
tion as Sin is, himself so highly ransomed and ennobled
to a new friendship and filial relation with God." ^
' Milton, Reason of Church Govei-nnient.
CHAPTER II
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES
" With thee will I break in pieces rulers and captains." — Jer. li. 23.
^HE Book of Daniel is constructed with consum-
T"
mate skill to teach the mighty lessons which it
was designed to bring home to the minds of its readers,
not only in the age of its first appearance, but for ever.
It is a book which, so far from being regarded as
unworthy of its place in the Canon by those who cannot
accept it as either genuine or authentic, is valued by
many such critics as a very noble work of inspired
genius, from which all the difficulties are removed when
it is considered in the light of its true date and origin.
This second chapter belongs to all time. All that might
be looked upon as involving harshnesses, difficulties,
and glaring impossibilities, if it were meant for literal
history and prediction, vanishes when we contemplate
it in its real perspective as a lofty specimen of imagina-
tive fiction, used, like the parables of our Blessed Lord,
as the vehicle for the deepest truths. We shall see
how the imagery of the chapter produced a deep impress
on the imagination of the holiest thinkers — how magni-
ficent a use is made of it fifteen centuries later by the
great poet of mediaeval Catholicism.^ It contains the
germs of the only philosophy of history which has stood
' Dante. Inferno, xiv. 94-120.
141
142 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
the test of time. It symbolises that ultimate conviction
of the Psalmist that " God is the Governor among the
nations." No other conviction can suffice to give us
consolation amid the perplexity which surrounds the
passing phases of the destinies of empires.
The first chapter serves as a keynote of soft, simple,
and delightful music by way of overture. It calms us
for the contemplation of the awful and tumultuous
scenes that are now in succession to be brought
before us.
The model which the writer has had in view in this
Haggadah is the forty-first chapter of the Book of
Genesis. In both chapters we have magnificent heathen
potentates — Pharaoh of Eg3^pt, and Nebuchadrezzar of
Babylon. In both chapters the kings dream dreams
by which they are profoundly troubled. In both, their
spirits are saddened. In both, they send for all the
Chakamim and all the Chartummim of their kingdoms
to interpret the dreams. In both, these professional
magicians prove themselves entirely incompetent to
furnish the interpretation. In both, the failure of the
heathen oneirologists is emphasised by the immediate
success of a Jewish captive. In both, the captives are
described as young, gifted, and beautiful. In both,
the interpretation of the king's dream is rewarded by
the elevation to princely civil honours. In both, the
immediate elevation to ruling position is followed by
life-long faithfulness and prosperity. When we add
that there are even close verbal resemblances between
the chapters, it is difficult not to believe that the one
has been influenced by the other.
The dream is placed " in the second year of the reign
of Nebuchadnezzar." The date is surprising; for the
first chapter has made Nebuchadrezzar a king of
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES 143
Babylon after the siege of Jerusalem " in the third year
of Jehoiakim " ; and setting aside the historic impossi-
bilities involved in that date, this scene would then fall
in the second 3'car of the probation of Daniel and his
companions, and at a time when Daniel could only
have been a boy of fifteen.^ The apologists get over
the difficulty with the ease which suffices superficial
readers who are already convinced. Thus Rashi says
" the second year oj Nebuchadnezzar^^ meaning " the
second year after the destruction of the Temple^'' i.e., his
twentieth year ! Josephus, no less arbitrarily, makes
it mean "the second year after the devastation of
Egypt." ' By such devices anything may stand for
anything. Hengstenberg and his school, after having
made Nebuchadrezzar a king, conjointly with his
father — a fact of which history knows nothing, and
indeed seems to exclude — say that the second year of
his reign does not mean the second year after he
became king, but the second year of his independent
rule after the death of Nabopolassar. This style of
interpretation is very familiar among harmonists, and
it makes the interpretation of Scripture perpetually
dependent on pure fancy. It is perhaps sufficient to
say that Jewish writers, in works meant for spiritual
teaching, troubled themselves extremely little with
minutiae of this kind. Like the Greek dramatists, they
were unconcerned with details, to which they attached
no importance, which they regarded as lying outside
the immediate purpose of their narrative. But if any
explanation be needful, the simplest way is, with Ewald,
Herzfeld, and Lenormant, to make a slight alteration
' The Assyrian and Babylonian kings, however, only dated their
reigns from the first new year after their accession.
■•' Antt., X. X. 3,
144 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
in the text, and to read "in the twelfth" instead of "in
the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar."
There was nothing strange in the notion that God
should have vouchsafed a prophetic dream to a heathen
potentate. Such instances had already been recorded
in the case of Pharaoh (Gen. xli.), as well as of his
chief courtiers (Gen. xl.) ; and in the case of Abimelech
(Gen. XX. 5-7). It was also a Jewish tradition that it
was in consequence of a dream that Pharaoh Necho
had sent a warning to Josiah not to advance against
him to the Battle of Megiddo.^ Such dreams are
recorded in the cuneiform inscriptions as having oc-
curred to Assyrian monarchs. Ishtar, the goddess of
battles, had appeared to Assur-bani-pal, and promised
him safety in his war against Teumman, King of Elam ;
and the dream of a seer had admonished him to take
severe steps against his rebel brother, the Viceroy of
Babylon. Gyges, King of Lydia, had been warned in
a dream to make alliance with Assur-bani-pal. In Egypt
Amen-meri-hout had been warned by a dream to unite
Egypt against the Ass3Tians.- Similarly in Persian
histor}^ Afrasiab has an ominous dream, and summons
all the astrologers to interpret it ; and some of them
bid him pay no attention to it.^ Xerxes (Herod., iii. 19)
and Astyages (Herod., i. 108) have dreams indicative
of future prosperity or adversity. The fundamental
conception of the chapter was therefore in accordance
with history * — though to say, with the Speaker's Com-
mentafy, that these parallels ** endorse the authenticity of
' 2 Chron. xxxv. 21. .See The Second Book of Kings, p. 404 (Ex-
positor's Bible).
^ See Professor Fuller, Speaker's Commentary, vi. 265.
" Malcolm, Hist, of Persia, i. 39.
* The belief that dreams come from God is not peculiar to the
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES MS
the Biblical narratives," is either to use inaccurate
terms, or to lay the unhallowed fire of false argument
on the sacred altar of truth. It is impossible to think
without a sigh of the vast amount which would have
to be extracted from so-called " orthodox " commen-
taries, if such passages were rigidly reprobated as a
dishonour to the cause of God.
Nebuchadrezzar then — in the second or twelfth year
of his reign — dreamed a dream, by which (as in the
case of Pharaoh) his spirit was troubled and his sleep
interrupted.^ His state of mind on waking is a psycho-
logical condition with which we are all familiar. We
awake in a tremor. We have seen something which
disquieted us, but we cannot recall what it was ; we
have had a frightful dream, but we can only remember
the terrifying impression which it has left upon our
minds.
Pharaoh, in the story of Joseph, remembered his
dreams, and only asked the professors of necromancy
to furnish him with its interpretation. But Nebuchad-
rezzar is here represented as a rasher and fiercer despot,
not without a side-glance at the raging folly and tyranny
of Antiochus Epiphanes. He has at his command an
army of priestly prognosticators, whose main function
it is to interpret the various omens of the future. Of
what use were they, if they could not be relied upon
in so serious an exigency ? Were they to be main-
tained in opulence and dignity all their lives, only to
Jews, or to Eg3'pt, or Assyria, or Greece (Horn., //., i. 63; Od., iv.
841), or Rome (Cic, De Div., passim), but to every nation of mankind,
even the most savage.
' Uan. ii. \: ''His dreaming brake from him." Comp. vi. 18;
Esther vi. I : Jerome says, " Umbra quaedam, et, ut ita dicam, aura
somnii atque vestigium remansit in corde regis, ut, referentibus aliis
posset reminisci eorum quae viderat."
10
146 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
fail him at a crisis ? It was true that he had forgotten
the dream, but it was obviously one of supreme import-
ance ; it was obviously an intimation from the gods :
was it not clearly their duty to say what it meant ?
So Nebuchadrezzar summoned together the whole
class of Bab3'lonian augurs in all their varieties — the
CharUwumm, " magicians," or book-learned ; ' the Ash-
shapJuni, " enchanters " ; - the Mckashaphwt, " sor-
cerers " ; ^ and the Kasdini, to which the writer gives
the long later sense of " dream-interpreters," which had
become prevalent in his own day.^ In later verses he
adds two further sections of the students — the K/ia-
k/iamfm, "wise men," and the Gazerim, or "sooth-
sayers." Attempts have often been made, and most
recently by Lenormant, to distinguish accurately between
these classes of magi, but the attempts evaporate for
the most part into shadowy etymologies.^ It seems to
have been a literary habit with the author to amass a
number of names and titles together." It is a part of
the stateliness and leisureliness of style which he
adopts, and he gives no indication of any sense of
difference between the classes which he enumerates,
' Gen. xli. 8 ; Schrader, K. A. T., p. 26 ; Records of the Past, i. 136.
- The word is peculiar to Daniel, both here in the Hebrew and in
the Aramaic. Pusey calls it " a common Syriac term, representing
some form of divination with which Daniel had become familiar in
Babylonia" (p. 40).
^ Exod. vii. II ; Deiit. xviii. 10; Isa. xlvii. 9, 12. AssjTian Kasli-
shapu.
■* As in the rule " Chaldcvos lie cottsulito." See supra, p. 48.
■'• The equivalents in the LXX., Vulgate, A.V., and other versions
are mostly based on uncertain guess-work. See E. Meyer, Gesch. d_
Alteiih., i. 185 ; Hommel, Gesch. Bab. u. Assyr., v. 386 ; Behrmann, p. 2.
'* E.g., iii. 2, 3, officers of state ; iii. 4, 5, etc., instruments of
music; iii. 21, clothes.
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES 147
either here or when he describes various ranks of
Babylonian officials.
When they were assembled before him, the king
informed them that he had dreamed an important dream,
but that it produced such agitation of spirit as had
caused him to forget its import.^ He plainly expected
them to supply the failure of his memory, for "a dream
not' interpreted," say the Rabbis, "is like a letter not
read." ^
Then spake the Chaldeans to the king, and their
answer follows in Aramaic (Araj/iilh), a language
which continues to be used till the end of chap. vii.
The Western Aramaic, however, here employed could
not have been the language in which they spoke, but
their native Babylonian, a Semitic dialect more akin to
Eastern Aramaic. The word Aramith here, as in Ezra
iv. 7, is probably a gloss or marginal note, to point out
the sudden change in the language of the Book.
With the courtly phrase, " O king, live for ever,"
they promised to tell the king the interpretation, if he
would tell them the dream.
" That I cannot do," said the king, " for it is gone
from me. Nevertheless, if you do not tell me both the
dream and its interpretation, you shall be hacked limb
by limb, and your houses shall be made a dunghill."^
The language was that of brutal despotism such as
had been customary for centuries among the ferocious
' ii. 5 : "The dream is gone from me," as in ver. 8 (Theodotion,
cLTr^ffTT]). But the meaning may be the decree (or word) is " sure " :
for, according to Noldeke, asda is a Persian word for " certain,"
Comp. Esther vii. 7 ; Isa. xlv. 23.
- Berachoih, f. 10, 2. This book supplies a charm to be spoken by
one who has forgotten his dream (f. 55, 2).
^ Dan. ii. 5, iii. 29. Theodot., eh drruXdav icecde. Lit. "ye shall
148 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
tyrants of Assyria. The punishment of dismemberment,
dichotomy, or death by mutilation was common among
them, and had constantly been depicted on their
monuments. It was doubtless known to the Baby-
lonians also, being familiar to the apathetic cruelty of
the East. Similarly the turning of the houses of
criminals into draught-houses was a vengeance prac-
tised among other nations.^ On the other hand, if the
" Chaldeans " arose to the occasion, the king would give
them rewards and great honours. It is curious to
observe that the Septuagint translators, with Antiochus
in their mind, render the verse in a form which would
more directly remind their readers of Seleucid methods.
" If you fail," they make the king say, " you shall be
made an example, and your goods shall be forfeited to
the crown." ^
With " nervous servility " the magi answer to the
king's extravagantly unreasonable demand, that he
must tell them the dream before they can tell him the
interpretation. Ewald is probably not far wrong in
thinking that a subtle element of irony and humour
underlies this scene. It was partly intended as a
satirical reflection on the mad vagaries of Epiphanes.
For the king at once breaks out into fury, and
tells them that they only want to gain (lit. " buy ")
be made into limbs." The LXX. render it by diafieXli^ofuii, tnenibratint
concidor, in frusta fio. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 51 ; Smith's Assur-bani-pal,
p. 137. The word liaddam, " a limb," seems to be of Persian origin —
in modern Persian andam. Hence the verb hadlm in the Targum of
I Kings xviii. ^i. Comp. 2 Mace. i. 16, fxiXii] iroiCw.
' Comp. Ezra vi. 1 1 ; 2 Kings x. 27 ; Records of the Past, i.
27. 43-
■ In iii. 96, Kal t) o'lKla avrov drjfjLevOriaeTai. Comp. 2 Mace. iii. 13 :
" But Heliodorus, because of the king's commandment, said, That in
anywise it must be brought into the king's treasury."
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES 149
time;' but that this should not avail them. The
dream liad evidently been of crucial significance and
extreme urgency ; something important, and perhaps
even dreadful, must be in the air. The very raison
d'etre of these thaumaturgists and stargazers was to
read the omens of the future. If the stars told of any
human events, they could not fail to indicate some-
thing about the vast trouble which overshadowed the
monarch's dream, even though he had forgotten its de-
tails. The king gave them to understand that he looked
on them as a herd of impostors ; that their plea for delay
was due to mere tergiversation ; - and that, in spite of
the lying and corrupt words which they had prepared
in order to gain respite " till the time be changed " ^ —
that is, until they were saved by some " lucky day "
or change of fortune ^ — there was but one sentence for
them, which could only be averted by their vindicating
their own immense pretensions, and telling him his
dream.
The " Chaldeans " naturally answered that the king's
request was impossible. The adoption of the Aramaic
at this point may be partly due to the desire for local
colouring.^ No king or ruler in the world had ever
imposed such a test on any Kartum or Ashshaph in the
world. ° No living man could possibly achieve any-
' LXX. Theodot., Kaifibv i^ayopd^eTe (not in a £-ood sense, as in
Eph. V. 16 ; Col. iv. 5).
^ Theodot., (rwiOeade. Cf. John ix. 22.
^ Theodot., ews ov 6 Kaipos Trap^Xdrj.
^ Esther iii. 7.
* The word Arainith may be (as Lenormant thinks) a gloss, as in
Ezra iv. 7.
^ A curious parallel is adduced by Behrmann {Daniel, p. 7).
Rabia-ibn-nazr, King of Yemen, has a dream which he cannot recall,
and acts precisely as Nebuchadrezzar does (Wiistenfeld, p. 9).
ISO THE BOOK OF DANIEL
thing so difiicult. There were some gods whose
dweUing is with flesh ; they tenant the souls of their
servants. But it is not in the power of these genii to
reveal what the king demands ; they are limited by the
weakness of the souls which they inhabit.^ It can only
be done by those highest divinities whose dwelling is
not with flesh, but who
" haunt
The lucid interspace of world and world,"
and are too far above mankind to mingle with their
thoughts.^
Thereupon the unreasonable king was angry and
very furious, and the decree went forth that the magi
were to be slain en masse.
How it was that Daniel and his companions were
not summoned to help the king, although they had
been already declared to be " ten times wiser " than all
the rest of the astrologers and magicians put together,
is a feature in the story with which the writer does not
trouble himself, because it in no way concerned his
main purpose. Now, however, since they were pro-
minent members of the magian guild, they are doomed
to death among their fellows. Thereupon Daniel
sought an interview with Arioch, " the chief of the
bodyguard,"^ and asked with gentle prudence why
' See Lenormant, La Magie, pp. 181-183.
" LXX., ii. II: el fj/q ris dyyeXos.
* Lit. " chief of the slaughter-men " or " executioners." LXX.i
ApXi/J-dyfipos. The title is perhaps taken from the story, which in this
chapter is so prominently in the writer's mind, where the same title
is given to Potiphar (Gen. xxxvii. 36). Comp. 2 Kings xxv. 8 ; Jer.
xxxix. 9. The name Arioch has been derived from Eri-nku, " servant
of the moon-god " {supra, p. 49), but is found in Gen. xiv, I as the name of
"the King of Ellasar." It is also found in Judith i. 6, "Arioch, King
of the Elymaians." An Erim-aku, King of Larsa, is found in cuneiform.
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES 151
the decree was so harshly urgent. By Arioch's inter-
vention he gained an interview with Nebuchadrezzar,
and promised to tell him the dream and its interpreta-
tion, if only the king would grant him a little time —
perhaps but a single night,^
The delay was conceded, and Daniel went to his
three companions, and urged then to join in prayer that
God would make known the secret to them and spare
their lives. Christ tells us that " if two shall agree on
earth as touching anything that they ask, it shall be
done for them." ^ The secret was revealed to Daniel
in a vision of the night, and he blessed " the God of
heaven." ^ Wisdom and might are his. Not dependent
on " lucky " or *' unlucky " days. He changeth the
times and seasons ; * He setteth down one king and
putteth up another. By His revelation of deep and
sacred things — for the light dwelleth with Him— He
had, in answer to their common prayer, made known
the secret.'^
Accordingly Daniel bids Arioch not to execute the
magians, but to go and tell the king that he will reveal
to him the interpretation of his dream.
' If Daniel went (as the text says) in person, he must have been
already a very high official. (Comp. Esther v. I ; Herod., i. 99.) If
so, it would have been strange that he should not have been consulted
among the magians. All these details are regarded as insignificant,
being extraneous to the general purport of the story (Ewald, Hist.,
iii. 194).
^ Matt, xviii. 19. The LXX. interpolate a ritual gloss: /cat Trap-qy-
yeiXe vrjorelav Kal derjcw koI Ti/xupioLv ^rjTr^aai. Trapd tou Kvplov.
^ The title is found in Gen. xxiv. 7, but only became common after
the Exile (Ezra i. 2, vi. 9, 10; Neh. i. 5, ii. 4).
* Comp. Dan. vii. 12; Jer. xxvii. 7; Acts i. 7, xpo""' ^ KaLpol;
I Thess. V. I ; Acts xvii. 26, opiaas wporeTayp.ei'ovs Kaipovs.
* With the phraseology of this prayer comp. Psalm xxxvi. 9, xli.,
cxxxix. 12; Neh. ix. 5 ; i Sam. ii. 8 ; Jer. xxxii. 19 ; Job xii. 22.
152 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Then, by an obvious verbal inconsistency in the
story, Arioch is represented as going with haste to
the king, with Daniel, and saying that he had found a
captive Jew who would answer the king's demands.
Arioch could never have claimed any such merit, seeing
that Daniel had already given his promise to Nebuchad-
rezzar in person, and did not need to be described.
The king formally puts to Daniel the question whether
he could fulfil his pledge ; and Daniel answers that,
though none of the KhakJiamiin, AsJixhaphitn, Char-
titmmhn, or Gazerhn ^ could tell the king his dream,
j'et there is a God in heaven — higher, it is implied, than
either the genii or those whose dwelling is not with
mortals — who reveals secrets, and has made known to
the king what shall be in the latter days.'-
The king, before he fell asleep, had been deeply
pondering the issues of the future ; and God, " the
revealer of secrets," '' had revealed those issues to him,
not because of any supreme wisdom possessed by
Daniel, but simply that the interpretation might be
made known.*
The king had seen ^ a huge gleaming, terrible
colossus of many colours and of different metals, but
otherwise not unlike the huge colossi which guarded
' Here the new title Gazerim, " prognosticators," is added to the
others, and is equally vague. It may be derived from Gasar, '-to cut "
— that is, "to determine."
^ Comp. Gen. xx. 3, xli. 25 ; Numb. xxii. 35.
* Comp. Gen. xli. 45.
■• Dan. ii. 30 : " For i/icir sakes that shall make known the inter-
pretation to the king" (A.V.). But the phrase seems merely to be
one of the vague forms for the impersonal which are common in the
Mishnah. The R.V. and Ewald rightly render it as in the text.
•'■ Here we have (ver. 31) nloo ! " behold ! " as in iv. 7, 10, vii. 8 ; but
in \ii. 2, 5i 6, 7, 13, we have aroo !
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES 153
the portals of his own palace. Its head was of fine
gold ; its torso of silver ; its belly and thighs of brass ;
its legs of iron ; its feet partly of iron and partly of
clay.^ But while he gazed upon it as it reared into
the sunlight, as though in mute defiance and insolent
security, its grim metallic glare, a mysterious and
unforseen fate fell upon it.^ The fragment of a rock
broke itself loose, not with hands, smote the image
upon its feet of iron and clay, and broke them to pieces.
It had now nothing left to stand upon, and instantly
the hollow multiform monster collapsed into promiscuous
ruins.'' Its shattered fragments became like the chaff
of the summer threshing-floor, and the wind swept them
away;* but the rock, unhewn by any earthly hands,
grew over the fragments into a mountain that filled the
earth.
That was the haunting and portentous dream ; and
this was its interpretation : —
The head of gold was Nebuchadrezzar himself, the
king of what Isaiah had flailed ** the golden city " " — a
King of kings, ruler over the beasts of the field, and
the fowls of heaven, and the children of men.^
' In the four metals there is perhaps the same underlj'ing thought
as in the Hesiodic and ancient conceptions of the four ages of the
world (Ewald, Hist., i. 368). Comp. the vision of Zoroaster quoted
from Dclitzsch by Puscy, p. 97 : " Zoroaster saw a tree from whose
roots sprang four trees of gold, silver, steel, and brass ; and Ormuzd
said to him, ' This is the world ; and the four trees are the four
"times" which are coming.' After the fourth comes, according to
Persian doctrine, Sosiosh, the Saviour." Behrmann refers also to
Bahman Yesht (Spiegel, Eran. Alterth., ii. 152); the Laws of Manu
(Schroder, Ind. Litt., 448); and Roth {Mytlios von den IVeltalfeni, i860).
- Much of the imagery seems to have been suggested by Jer. li.
^ Comp. Rev. xx. 1 1 : Kai rbiro^ oi/x (vp^drj avrols.
* Psalm i. 4, ii. 9 ; Isa. xli. 15 ; Jer. li. 33, etc.
* Isa. xiv. 4.
" King of kings. Comp. Ezek. xxvi. 7 ; Ezra vii. 12 ; Isa. xxxvi. 4.
134 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
After him should come a second and an inferior king-
dom, symbolised by the arms and heart of silver.
Then a third kingdom of brass.
Finally a fourth kingdom, strong and destructive
as iron. But in this fourth kingdom was an element
of weakness, symbolised by the fact that the feet are
partly of iron and partly of weak clay. An attempt
should be made, by intermarriages, to give greater
coherency to these elements ; but it should fail, because
they could not intermix. In the days of these kings,
indicated by the ten toes of the image, swift destruction
should come upon the kingdoms from on high ; for the
King of heaven should set up a kingdom indestructible
and eternal, which should utterly supersede all former
kingdoms. "The intense nothingness and transitori-
ness of man's might in its highest estate, and the
might of God's kingdom, are the chief subjects of this
vision." ^
Volumes have been written about the four empires
indicated by the constituents of the colossus in this
dream ; but it is entirely needless to enter into them
at length. The vast majority of the interpretations
have been simply due to a-priori prepossessions, which
are arbitrary and baseless. The object has been to
make the interpretations fit in with preconceived theories
of prophecy, and with the traditional errors about the
It is the Babylonian Shar-shayrdni, or Sharru-rabbit (Behrmann).
The Rabbis tried (impossibly) to construe this title, which they thought
only suitable'to God, with the following clause. But Nebuchadrezzar
was so addressed (Ezek. xxvi. 7)) 2s the Assyrian kings had been
before him (Isa. x. 8), and the Persian kings were after him (Ezra
vii, 12). The expression seems strange, but comp. Jer. xxvii. 6,
xxviii. 14. The LXX. and Theodotion mistakenly interpolate IxOiJes
T^s daXduarjs.
' Pusey, p. 63.
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES 155
date and object of the Book of Daniel. If we first see
the irresistible evidence that the Book appeared in the
days of Antiochus Epiphanes, and then observe that
all its earthly " predictions " culminate in a minute
description of his epoch, the general explanation of the
four empires, apart from an occasional and a subordinate
detail, becomes perfectly clear. In the same way the
progress of criticism has elucidated in its general out-
lines the interpretation of the Book which has been so
largely influenced by the Book of Daniel — the Reve-
lation of St. John. The all-but-unanimous consensus
of the vast majority of the sanest and most competent
exegetes now agrees in the view that the Apocalypse
was written in the age of Nero, and that its tone and
visions were predominantly influenced by his persecu-
tion of the early Christians, as the Book of Daniel was
by the ferocities of Antiochus against the faithful Jews.
Ages of persecution, in which plain-speaking was im-
possible to the oppressed, were naturally prolific of
apocal3^ptic cryptographs. What has been called the
" futurist " interpretation of these books — which, for
instance, regards the fourth empire of Daniel as some
kingdom of Antichrist as yet unmanifested — is now
universally abandoned. It belongs to impossible forms
of exegesis, which have long been discredited by the
boundless variations of absurd conjectures, and by the
repeated refutation of the predictions which many have
ventured to base upon these erroneous methods. Even
so elaborate a work as Elliott's Horce Apocalypticce
would now be regarded as a curious anachronism.
That the first empire, represented by the head of
gold, is the Babylonian, concentrated in Nebuchadrezzar
himself, is undisputed, because it is expressly stated
by the writer (ii. "i^y^ 38).
1S6 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Nor can there be any serious doubt, if the Book be
one coherent whole, written by one author, that by the
fourth empire is meant, as in later chapters, that of
Alexander and his successors — " the Diadochi" as they
are often called.
For it must be regarded as certain that the four
elements of the colossus, which indicate the four
empires as they are presented to the imagination of
the heathen despot, are closely analogous to the same
four empires which in the seventh chapter present
themselves as wild beasts out of the sea to the imagi-
nation of the Hebrew seer. Since the fourth empire
is there, beyond all question, that of Alexander and
his successors, the symmetry and purpose of the Book
prove conclusively that the fourth empire here is also
the Graeco-Macedonian, strongly and irresistibly founded
by Alexander, but gradually sinking to utter weakness
by its own divisions, in the persons of the kings who
split his dominion into four parts. If this needed any
confirmation, we find it in the eighth chapter, which
is mainly concerned with Alexander the Great and
Antiochus Epiphanes ; and in the eleventh chapter,
which enters with startling minuteness into the wars,
diplomacy, and intermarriages of the Ptolemaic and
Seleucid dynasties. In viii. 21 we are expressly told
that the strong he-goat is "the King of Grecia," who
puts an end to the kingdoms of Media and Persia.
The arguments of Hengstenberg, Pusey, etc., that the
Greek Empire was a civilising and an ameliorating
power, apply at least as strongly to the Roman Empire.
But when Alexander thundered his way across the
dreamy East, he was looked upon as a sort of shatter-
ing levin-bolt. The interconnexion of these visions
is clearly marked even here, for the juxtaposition of
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES 157
iron and miry clay is explained by the clause ** they
shall mingle themselves with the seed of men : ^ but they
shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not
mixed with clay." This refers to the same attempts
to consolidate the rival powers of the Kings of Egypt
and Syria which are referred to in xi. 6, 7, and 17. It
is a definite allusion which becomes meaningless in
the hands of those interpreters who attempt to explain
the iron empire to be that of the Romans. " That the
Greek Empire is to be the last of the Gentile empires
appears from viii. 17, where the vision is said to refer
to ' the time of the end.' Moreover, in the last vision
of all (x.-xii.), the rise and progress of the Greek
Empire are related with many details, but nothing what-
ever is said of any subsequent empire. Thus to intro-
duce the Roman Empire into the Book of Daniel is to
set at naught the plainest rules of exegesis." ^
The reason of the attempt is to make the termination
of the prophecy coincide with the coming of Christ, which
is then — quite unhistorically — regarded as followed by
the destruction of the fourth and last empire. But
the interpretation can only be thus arrived at by a
falsification of facts. For the victory of Christianity
over Paganism, so decisive and so Divine, was in no
sense a destruction of the Roman Empire. In the first
place that victory was not achieved till three centuries
after Christ's advent, and in the second place it was
rather a continuation and defence of the Roman Empire
than its destruction. The Roman Empire, in spite of
Alaric and Genseric and Attila, and because of its
alliance with Christianity, may be said to have practi-
cally continued down to modern times. So far from
' Comp. Jcr. xxxi. 27. -^ Bevan, p. 66.
158 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
being regarded as the shatterers of the Roman Empire,
. the Christian popes and bishops were, and were often
called, the Dcfcnsorcs Civitatis. That many of the
Fathers, following many of the Rabbis, regarded Rome
as the iron empire, and the fourth wild beast, was
due to the fact that until modern days the science of
criticism was unknown, and exegesis was based on
the shifting sand.^ If we are to accept their authority
on this question, we must accept it on many others,
respecting views and methods which have now been
unanimously abandoned by the deeper insight and
advancing knowledge of mankind. The influence of
Jewish exegesis over the Fathers — erroneous as were
its principles and fluctuating as were its conclusions —
was enormous. It was not unnatural for the later
Jews, living under the hatred and oppression of Rome,
and still yearning for the fulfilment of Messianic pro-
mises, to identify Rome with the fourth empire. And
this seems to have been the opinion of Josephus, what-
ever that may be worth. But it is doubtful whether it
corresponds to another and earlier Jewish tradition.
For among the Fathers even Ephraem Syrus identifies
the Macedonian Empire with the fourth empire, and
he may have borrowed this from Jewish tradition.
But of how little value were early conjectures may be
seen in the fact that, for reasons analogous to those
which had made earlier Rabbis regard Rome as the
fourth empire, two mediaeval exegetes so famous as
Saadia the Gaon and'Abn Ezra had come to the conclu-
sion that the fourth empire was — the Mohammedan I '^
Every detail of the vision as regards the fourth
' The interpretation is first found, ainid a cliaos of false exegesis,
in the Epistle of Barnabas, iv. 4, § 6.
* See Bevan, p. 65.
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES 159
kingdom is minutely in accord with the kingdom of
Alexander. It can only be applied to Rome by deplor-
able shifts and sophistries, the untcnability of which we
are now more able to estimate than was possible in
earlier centuries. So far indeed as the iron is con-
cerned, that might by itself stand equally well for
Rome or for Macedon, if Dan. vii. 7, 8, viii. 3, 4, and
xi. 3 did not definitely describe the conquests of
Alexander. But all which follows is meaningless as
applied to Rome, nor is there anything in Roman
history to explain any division of the kingdom (ii. 41),
or attempt to strengthen it by intermarriage with other
kingdoms (ver. 43). In the divided Graeco-Macedonian
Empires of the Diadochi, the dismemberment of one
mighty kingdom into the four much weaker ones of
Cassander, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Seleucus began
immediately after the death of Alexander (b.c. 323). It
was completed as the result of twenty-two years of
war after the Battle of Ipsus (b.c. 301). The marriage
of Antiochus Theos to Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy
Philadelphus (e.g. 249, Dan. xi. 6), was as ineffectual
as the later marriage of Ptolemy V. (Epiphanes) to
Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus the Great (b.c.
193), to introduce strength or unity into the distracted
kingdoms (xi. 17, 18).
The two legs and feet are possibly meant to indicate
the two most important kingdoms — that of the Seleucidae
in Asia, and that of the Ptolemies in Egypt. If we
are to press the symbolism still more closely, the ten
toes may shadow forth the ten kings who are indicated
by the ten horns in vii. 7,
Since, then, we are told that the first empire re-
presents Nebuchadrezzar by the head of gold, and
since we have incontestably verified the fourth empire
i6o THE BOOK OF DANIEL
to be the Greek Empire of Alexander and his successors,
it only remains to identify the intermediate empires of
silver and brass. And it becomes obvious that they
can only be the Median and the Persian. That the
writer of Daniel regarded these empires as distinct is
clear from v. 31 and vi.
It is obvious that the silver is meant for the Median
Empire, because, closely as it was allied with the
Persian in the view of the writer (vi. 9, 13, 16, viii. 7),
he yet spoke of the two as separate. The rule of
" Darius the Mede," not of ** Cyrus the Persian," is, in
his point of view, the ** other smaller kingdom " which
arose after that of Nebuchadrezzar (v. 31). Indeed,
this is also indicated in the vision of the ram (viii. 3) ;
for it has two horns, of which the higher and stronger
(the Persian Empire) rose up after the other (the
Median Empire) ; just as in this vision the Persian
Empire represented by the thighs of brass is clearly
stronger than the Median Empire, which, being wealthier,
is represented as being of silver, but is smaller than
the other.^ Further, the second empire is represented
later on by the second beast (vii. 5), and the three
ribs in its mouth may be meant for the three satrapies
of vi. 2.
It may then be regarded as a certain result of exegesis
that the four empires are — (i) the Babylonian; (2) the
Median; (3) the Persian; (4) the Graeco-Macedonian.
' On the distinction in the writer's mind between the Median and
Persian Empires see v. 28, 31, vi. 8, 12, 15, ix. i, xi. i, compared with
vi. 28, X. I. In point of fact, the Persians and Medians were long
spoken of as distinct, though they were closely allied ; and to the
Medes had been specially attributed the forthcoming overthrow of
Babylon : Jer. 11. 28, " Prepare against her the nations with the kings
of the Medes." Comp. Jer. li. 11, and Isa. xiii. 17, xxi. 2, "Besiege,
O Media."
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES i6i
But wliat is tlie stone cut without hands which smote
the image upon his feet ? It brake them in pieces, and
made the collapsing debris of the colossus like chaff
scattered by the wind from the summer threshing-floor.
It grew till it became a great mountain which filled
the earth.
The meaning of the image being first smitten upon
xisfeet is that the ov^erthrow falls on the iron empire.
All alike are agreed that by the mysterious rock-
fragment the writer meant the Messianic Kingdom.
The " mountain " out of which (as is here first
mentioned) the stone is cut is "the Mount Zion." ^ It
commences "m the days of these kings." Its origin is
not earthl}', for it is "cut without hands." It repre-
sents " a kingdom " which " shall be set up by the
God of heaven," and shall destroy and supersede all
the kingdoms, and shall stand for ever.
Whether a personal Messiah was definitely pro-
minent in the mind of the writer is a question which
will come before us when we consider the seventh
chapter. Here there is only a Divine Kingdom ; and
that this is the dominion of Israel seems to be marked
by the expression^ " the kingdom shall not be left to
another people."
The prophecy probably indicates the glowing hopes
which the writer conceived of the future of his nation,
even in the days of its direst adversit}', in accordance
with the predictions of the mighty prophets his pre-
decessors, whose writings he had recently studied.
Very few of those predictions have as yet been literally
fulfilled ; not one of them was fulfilled with such im-
' See Isa. ii. 2, xxviii. i6 ; Matt. xxi. 42-44. " Le mot de Messie
n'est pas dans Daniel. Le mot de Meshiacli, ix. 26, designe I'aiityriie
(probablement sacerdotale) de la Judee " (Renan, Hist., iv. 358).
II
162 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
mediateness as the prophets conceived, Avhcn they were
" rapt into future times." To the prophetic vision was
revealed the glory that should be hereafter, but not the
times and seasons, which God hath kept in His ovv'n
power, and which Jesus told His disciples were not
even known to the Son of Man Himself in His human
capacity.
Antiochus died, and his attempts to force Hellenism
upon the Jews were so absolute a failure, that, in point
of fact, his persecution only served to stereotype the
ceremonial institutions which — not entirely pfopn'o niohi,
but misled b}' men like the false high priests Jason
and Menelaus — he had attempted to obliterate. But
the magnificent expectations of a golden age to follow
were indefinitely delayed. Though Antiochus died and
failed, the Jews became b}'^ no means unanimous in
their religious policy. Even under the Hasmonsean
princes fierce elements of discord were at work in the
midst of them. Foreign usurpers adroitly used these
dissensions for their own objects, and in B.C. 37 Judaism
acquiesced in the national acceptance of a depraved
Edomite usurper in the person of Herod, and a section
of the Jews attempted to represent Jiivi as the promised
Messiah I^
Not only was the Messianic prediction unfulfilled in
its literal aspect "in the days of these kings," ^ but
even yet it has by no means received its complete
accomplishment. The " stone cut without hands "
indicated the kingdom, not — as most of the prophets
seem to have imagined when they uttered words which
meant more than they themselves conceived — of the
' See Kuencn, The Prophets, iii.
'*' No kings have been mentioned, but the ten toes symbolise ten
kings. Conip. vii. 24.
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES 163
literal Israel, but of that ideal Israel which is composed,
not of Jews, but of Gentiles. The divinest side of
Messianic prophecy is the expression of that unquench-
able hope and of that indomitable faith which are
the most glorious outcome of all that is most Divine
in the spirit of man. That faith and hope have never
found even an ideal or approximate fulfilment save in
Christ and in His kingdom, which is now, and shall
be without end.
But apart from the Divine predictions of the eternal
sunlight visible on the horizon over vast foreshortened
ages of time which to God are but as one day, let us
notice how profound is the symbolism of the vision —
how well it expresses the surface glare, the inward
hollowness, the inherent weakness, the var3dng suc-
cessions, the predestined transience of overgrown
empires. The great poet of Catholicism makes magni-
ficent use of Daniel's image, and sees its deep signifi-
cance. He too describes the ideal of all earthly
empire as a colossus of gold, silver, brass, and iron,
which yet mainly rests on its right foot of baked and
brittle cla}^ But he tells us that every part of this
image, except the gold, is crannied through and through
by a fissure, down which there flows a constant stream
of tears. -^ These effects of misery trickle downwards,
working their way through the cavern in Mount Ida in
which the image stands, till, descending from rock to
rock, they form those four rivers of hell, —
"Abhorred Styx, the flood of deadly hate;
Sad Acheron of sorrow, black and deep ;
Cocytus, named of lamentation loud
Heard on the rueful stream ; fierce Phlegethon
Whose waves of torrent fire inflame with rage."-'
' Dante, Inferno, xiv. 94-120. - Milton, Paradise Lost, ii. 575.
i64 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
There is a terible grandeur in the emblem. Splendid
and venerable looks the idol of human empire in all
its pomp and pricelessness. But underneath its cracked
and fissured weakness drop and trickle and stream the
salt and bitter runnels of misery and anguish, till the
rivers of agony are swollen into overflow by their
coagulated scum.
It was natural that Nebuchadrezzar should have felt
deeply impressed when the vanished outlines of his
dream were thus recalled to him and its awful inter-
pretation revealed. The manner in which he expresses
his amazed reverence may be historically improbable,
but it is ps3xhologically true. We are told that " he
fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel," and the
word "worshipped" implies genuine adoration. That
so magnificent a potentate should have lain on his
face before a captive Jewish youth and adored him
is amazing.^ It is still more so that Daniel, without
protest, should have accepted, not only his idolatrous
homage, but also the offering of " an oblation and
sweet incense."^ That a Nebuchadrezzar should have
been thus prostrate in the dust before their young
countryman would no doubt be a delightful picture
to the Jews, and if, as we believe, the story is an
unconnected Haggoda, it may well have been founded
on such passages as Isa. xlix. 23, " Kings shall bow
down to thee with their faces toward the earth, and
' It majf be paralleled by the legendary prostrations of Alexander
the Great before the high priest Jaddiia (Jos., Antt., XI. viii. 5), and
of Edwin of Deira before Paulinus of York (Baeda, Hist., ii. 14-16).
- Isa. xlvi. 6. The same verbs, " they fall down, yea tliey worship,"
are there used of idols.
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES 165
lick up the dust of thy feet";^ together with Isa. hi. 15,
" Kings shall shut their mouths at him : for that which
had not been told them shall they see ; and that which
they had not heard shall they perceive."
But it is much more amazing that Daniel, who, as
a boy, had been so scrupulous about the Levitic
ordinance of unclean meats, in the scruple against
which the gravamen lay in the possibility of their
having been offered to idols,^ should, as a man, have
allowed himself to be treated exactly as the king treated
his idols ! To say that he accepted this worship be-
cause the king was not adoring him^ but the God
whose power had been manifested in him,^ is an idle
subterfuge, for that excuse is offered by all idolaters
in all ages. Very different was the conduct of Paul
and Barnabas when the rude population of Lystra
wished to worship them as incarnations of Hermes and
Zeus. The moment the}' heard of it they rent their
clothes in horror, and leapt at once among the people,
crying out, " Sirs, why do ye such things ? We also
are men of like passions with you, and are preaching
unto you that ye should turn from these vain ones unto
the Living God."^
That the King of Babylon should be represented as
at once acknowledging the God of Daniel as "a God
' Comp. Isa. Ix. 14: "The sons also of them that afflicted thee
shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall
bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet."
^ Comp. Rom. xiv. 23; Acts xv. 29; Heb. xiii 9; i Cor. viii. i ;
Rev. ii. 14, 20.
^ So Jerome : " Non tam Danielem quam in Daniele adorat Deum,
qui mj-steria revelavit." Comp. Jos., Antt., XI. viii. 5, v^'here Alexander
answers the taunt of Parmenio about his irpocrKiv-qais of the high
priest : ov tovtov irpo<T€KvvT}cra, tov 5e GeoV.
* Acts xiv. 14, 15.
i66 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
of gods," though he was a fanatical votary of Bel-
merodach, belongs to the general plan of the Book.
Daniel received in reward many great gifts, and is
made "ruler of all the wise men of Babylon, and chief
of the governors [5/^;//;/] over all the wise men of
Babylon." About his acceptance of the civil office
there is no difficulty ; but there is a quite insuperable
historic difficulty in his becoming a chief magian. All
the wise men of Babylon, whom the king had just
threatened with dismemberment as a pack of impostors,
were, at any rate, a highly sacerdotal and essentially
idolatrous caste. That Daniel should have objected
to particular kinds of food from peril of defilement, and
yet that he should have consented to be chief hierarch
of a heathen cult, would indeed have been to strain
at gnats and to swallow camels !
And so great was the distinction which he earned
by his interpretation of the dream, that, at his further
request, satrapies were conferred on his three com-
panions ; but he himself, like Mordecai, afterwards " sat
in the gate of the king." ^
' Esther iii. 2. Comp. i Cliron. xxvi. 30. This corresponds to
what Xenophon calls at eTrt ras 6vpas (poirrifffis, and to our " right of
enttre."
CHAPTER III
THE IDOL OF GOLD, AND THE FAITHFUL THREE
"Every goldsmith is put to shame by his molten image: for his
molten image is vanity, and there is no breath in them. They are
vanitj', a work of delusion : in the time of their visitation they shall
perish."— Jer. li. 17, 18.
" The angel of the Lord encampeth around tliem that fear Him,
and shall deliver them." — Psalm xxxiv. 7,
" When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burnt ;
neither shall the flame kindle upon thee." — Isa. xliii. 2.
REGARDED as an instance of the use of historic
fiction to inculcate the noblest truths, the third
chapter of Daniel is not only superb in its imaginative
grandeur, but still more in the manner in Avhich it sets
forth the piety of ultimate faithfulness, and of that
" Death-defying utterance of truth "
which is the essence of the most heroic and inspiring
forms of martyrdom. So far from slighting it, because
it does not come before us with adequate evidence to
prove that it was even intended to be taken as literal
history, I have always regarded it as one of the most
precious among the narrative chapters of Scripture.
It is of priceless value as illustrating the deliverance
of undaunted faithfulness — as setting forth the truth
that they who love God and trust in Him must love
Him and trust in Him even till the end, in spite not
only of the most overwhelming peril, but even when
167
1 68 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
they are brought face to face with apparently hopeless
defeat. Death itself, by torture or sword or flame,
threatened by the priests and tyrants and multitudes
of the earth set in open array against them, is impotent
to shake the purpose of God's saints. When the
servant of God can do nothing else against the banded
forces of sin, the world, and the devil, he at least can
die, and can say like the Maccabees, " Let us die in our
simplicity 1 " He may be saved from death ; but even
if not, he must prefer death to apostasy, and will save
his own soul. That the Jews were ever reduced to
such a choice during the Babylonian exile there is no
evidence ; indeed, all evidence points the other way,
and seems to show that they were allowed with perfect
tolerance to hold and practise their own religion.^ But
in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes the question which
to choose — martyrdom or apostasy — became a very
burning one. Antiochus set up at Jerusalem " the
abomination of desolation," and it is easy to under-
stand what courage and conviction a tempted Jew might
derive from the study of this splendid defiance. That
the story is of a kind well fitted to haunt the imagina-
tion is shown by the fact that Firdausi tells a similar
story from Persian tradition of " a martyr hero who
came unhurt out of a fiery furnace."^
' The false prophets Ahab and Zedekiah were "roasted in the fire"
(Jer. xxix. 22), which may have suggested the idea of this punishment
to the writer; but it was for committing "lewdness" — " folly," Judg.
XX. 6 — in Israel, and for adultery and lies, which were regarded as
treasonable. In some traditions they are identified with the two
elders of the Story of Susanna. Assur-bani-pal burnt Samas-sum-ucin,
his brother, who was Viceroy of Babylon (about b.c. 648), and
Te-Umman, who cursed his gods (Smith, Assur-lxmt-pal, p. 138).
Comp. Ewald, Prophets, iii. 240. See supra, p. 44.
■■^ Malcolm, Persia, i. 29, 30.
THE IDOL OF GOLD, AND THE FAITHFUL THREE 169
This immortal chapter breathes exactly the same
spirit as the forty-fourth Psalm.
"Our heart is not turned back,
Neither our steps gone out of Thy way:
No, not when Thou hast smitten us into the place of dragons.
And covered us with the shadow of death.
If we have forgotten the Name of our God,
And holden up our hands to any strange god,
Shall not God search it out ?
For He knoweth the very secrets of the heart."
" Nebuchadnezzar the king," we are told in one of
the stately overtures in which this writer rejoices,
" made an image of gold, whose height was threescore
cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits, and he set
it up in the plains of Dura, in the province of Babylon."
No date is given, but the writer may well have
supposed or have traditionally heard that some such
event took place about the eighteenth year of Nebuchad-
rezzar's reign, when he had brought to conclusion a
series of great victories and conquests.^ Nor are we
told whom the image represented. We may imagine
that it was an idol of Bel-merodach, the patron deity
of Babylon, to whom we know that he did erect an
image ; '■^ or of Nebo, from whom the king derived his
name. When it is said to be "of gold," the writer, in
the grandiose character of his imaginative facult}^, may
have meant his words to be taken literally, or he may
merely have meant that it was gilded, or overlaid with
' Both in Theodotion and the LXX. we have 'irovs oKTUKaideKarov.
The siege of Jerusalem was not, however, finished till the nineteenth
year of Nebuchadrezzar (2 Kings xxv. 8). Others conjecture that
the scene occurred in his thirty-first year, when he was " at rest in
his house, and flourishing in his palace " (Dan. iv. 4).
- Records of the Past, v. 113. The inscriptions of Nebuchadrezzar
are full of glorification of Marduk (Merodach), id., v. 115, 135, vii. 75.
17° THE BOOK OF DANIEL
gold.^ There were colossal images in Egypt and in
Nineveh, but we never read in history of any other
gilded image ninety feet high and nine feet broad.^
The name of the plain or valley in which it was
erected — Dura — has been found in several Babylonian
localities.^
Then the king proclaimed a solemn dedicatory
festival, to which he invited every sort of functionary,
of which the writer, with his usual Trupycoa-i^ and
rotundity of expression, accumulates the eight names.
They were : —
1. The Princes, " satraps," or wardens of the realm.''
2. The Governors ' (ii. 48).
3. The Captains."
4. The Judges.''
' Comp. Isa. xliv. 9-20. Mr. Hormuzd Rassan discovered a colossal
statue of Nebo at Nimroiid in 1853. Shalmanezer III. says on his
obelisk, " I made an image of my royalty ; upon it I inscribed tlie
praise of Asshur my master, and a true account of my exploit?."
Herodotus (i. 183) mentions a statue of Zeus in Babylon, on which
was spent eight hundred talents of gold, and of another made of
" solid gold " twelve ells high.
- By the apologists the "image " or " statue " is easily toned down
into a bust on a hollow pedestal (Archdeacon Rose, Speaker's Coni-
iiientary, p. 270). The colossus of Nero is said to have been a hundred
and ten feet high, but was of marble. Nestle {Marginalia, 35) quotes
a passage from Ammianus Marcellinus, which mentions a colossal
statue of Apollo reared by Antiochus Epiphanes, to which there may
be a side-allusion here.
^ Schradcr, p. 430: Dur-Y;>gina, Dur-Sargina, etc. LXX., iv vedlo)
ToD TrepipoXov ^dipas Ba/3ii\wvtas.
' LXX. and Vulg., salrapa. Comp. Ezra viii. 36 ; Esther iii. 12.
Supposed to be the Persian Khshatra-pawan (Bevan, p. 79).
^ Signi, Babylonian word (Schrader, p. 411).
* LXX., TQwapxo-i. Comp. Pechah, Ezra v. 14. An Assj'rian word
(Schrader, p. 577).
* LXX., Tfyovfj-evoi. Perhaps the Persian cttdarzgar, " or counsellor."
THE IDOL OF GOLD, AND THE FAITHFUL THREE 171
5. The Treasurers or ConLrolkrs.'
6. The Counsellors.^
7. The Sheriffs.^
8. All the Rulers of the Provinces.
Any attempts to attach specific values to these titles
are failures. They seem to be a catalogue of Assyrian,
Babylonian, and Persian titles, and may perhaps (as
Ewald conjectured) be meant to represent the various
grades of three classes of functionaries— civil, military,
and legal.
Then all these officials, who with leisurely stateliness
are named again, came to the festival, and stood before
the image. It is not improbable that the writer may
have been a witness of some such splendid ceremony
to which the Jewish magnates were invited in the reign
of Antiochus Epiphanes.''
Then a herald (kerooza ■') cried aloud " a proclama-
tion ''to all peoples, nations, and languages." Such a
throng might easily have contained Greeks, Phoenicians,
Jews, Arabs, and Assyrians, as well as Babylonians.
At the outburst of a blast of " boisterous janizary-
music " they are all to fall down and worship the
golden image.
Of the six different kinds of musical instruments,
which, in his usual style, the writer names and reiterates,
' LXX., dioiKTjTai. Comp. Ezra vii. 21 ; but Gratz thinks there is a
mere scribe's mistake for the gadbart of vv. 24 and 27.
■ This word is perhaps the old Persian databnrd.
^ The word is found here alone. Perhaps "advisers." On these
words see Bevan, p. 79; Speaker's Commentary, pp. 278, 279; Sayce,
Assyr. Gr., p. no.
* Ewald, Prophets, v. 209 ; Hist., v. 294.
^ The word has often been compared with the Greek KTjpv^, but the
root is freely found in Assj'rian inscriptions {^Karas, "an edict").
" Comp. Rev. xviii. 2, ^Kpa^ev ev Ictx'jC
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
and which it is neither possible nor very important to
distinguish, three — the harp, psaltery, and bagpipe —
are Greek ; two, the horn and sackbut, have names
derived from roots found both in Aryan and Semitic
languages ; and one, " the pipe," is Semitic. As to
the list of officials, the writer had added " and all the
rulers of the provinces " ; so here he adds " and all
kinds of music." ^
Any one who refused to obey the order was to be
flung, the same hour, into the burning furnace of fire.
Professor Sayce, in his Hibbert Lectures, connects
the whole scene with an attempt, first by Nebuchad-
rezzar, then by Nabunaid, to make Merodach — who,
to conciliate the prejudices of the w^orshippers of the
older deity Bel, was called Bel-merodach— the chief
deity of Babylon. He sees in the king's proclamation
an underlying suspicion that some would be found to
oppose his attempted centralisation of worship. -
The music burst forth, and the vast throng all pros-
trated themselves, except Daniel's three companions,
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego.
We naturally pause to ask where then was Daniel ?
If the narrative be taken for literal history, it is easy
to answer with the apologist that he w^as ill ; or was
absent ; or was a person of too much importance
to be required to prostrate himself ; or that " the
Chaldeans" were afraid to accuse him. ^'Certainly"
' See sup7-a, p. 22. The (jar'ita (horn, Kfpas) and sab'ka (aa/j.pvKr))
are in root both Greek and Aramean. The " pipe " {ntaslirokitha)
is Semitic. Brandig tries to prove that even in Nebuchadrezzar's time
these three Greek names (even the symphoiiia) had been borrowed
by tlie Babylonians from the Greeks ; but the combined weight of
philological authority is acainst him.
* See Hibbert LeiiiiiTs, eiiap. Ixxxix., etc.
THE IDOL OF GOLD, AND THE FAITHFUL THREE 173
says Professor Fuller, " had this chapter been the
composition of a pseudo-Daniel, or the record of a
fictitious event, Daniel would have been introduced and
his immunity explained." Apologetic literature abounds
in such fanciful and valueless arguments. It would be
just as true, and just as false, to say that " certainly,"
if the narrative were historic, his absence would have
been explained ; and all the more because he was
expressly elected to be "in the gate of the king." But
if we regard the chapter as a noble Haggada, there is
not the least difficulty in accounting for Daniel's absence.
The separate stories were meant to cohere to a certain
extent ; and though the writers of this kind of ancient
imaginative literature, even in Greece, rarely trouble
themselves with any questions which lie outside the
immediate purpose, yet the introduction of Daniel into
this story would have been to violate every vestige
of verisimilitude. To represent Nebuchadrezzar wor-
shipping Daniel as a god, and offering oblations to
him on one page, and on the next to represent the
king as throwing him into a furnace for refusing to
worship an idol, would have involved an obvious incon-
gruity. Daniel is represented in the other chapters
as playing his part and bearing his testimony to the
God of Israel ; this chapter is separately devoted
to the heroism and the testimony of his three
friends.
Observing the defiance of the king's edict, certain
Chaldeans, actuated by jealousy, came near to the king
and " accused " the Jews.^
The word for " accused " is curious and interesting.
It is literally ^' ate the pieces of the Jews""- evidently
' Comp. vi. 13, 14. - Akaloo Oar'lsiliin.
174 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
involviog a metaphor of fierce devouring malice.^ Re-
minding the king of his decree, they inform him that
three of the Jews to whom he has given such high pro-
motion " thought well not to regard thee ; thy god will
they not serve, nor worship the golden image which
thou hast set up." '^
Nebuchadrezzar, like other despots who suffer from
the vertigo of autocracy, was liable to sudden outbursts
of almost spasmodic fury. We read of such storms of
rage in the case of Antiochus Epiphanes, of Nero, of
Valentinian I., and even of Theodosius. The double
insult to himself and to his god on the part of men to
whom he had shown such conspicuous favour trans-
ported him out of himself. For Bel-merodach, whom
he had made the patron god of Babylon, was, as he
says in one of his own inscriptions, " the Lord, the
joy of my heart in Babylon, which is the seat of my
sovereignty and empire." It seemed to him too
intolerable that this god, who had crowned him with
glory and victory, and that he himself, arrayed in
the plenitude of his imperial power, should be defied
and set at naught by three miserable and ungrateful
captives.
He puts it to them whether it was their set purpose "^
that they would not serve his gods or worship his
image. Then he offers them a locus pcenitentice. The
music should sound forth again. If they would then
worship — but if not, they should be flung into the
' It is "found in the Targum rendering of Lev. xix. i6 for a tale-
bearer, and is frequent as a Syriac and Arabic idiom " (Fuller).
^ Jerome emphasises the element of jealousy, " Quos prsetulisti
nobis et captivos ac servos priitcipes fecisii, ii elati in stiperbiarn tua
praecepta contemnunt."
■' The phrase is unique and of uncertain meaning.
THE IDOL OF GOLD, AND THE FAITHFUL THREE 175
furnace, — " and who is that God that shall dehvcr you
out of my hands ? "
The question is a direct challenge and defiance of the
God of Israel, like Pharaoh's "And who is Jehovah,
that I should obey His voice?" or like Sennacherib's
" Who are they among all the gods that have delivered
their land out of my hand ? " ^ It is answered in each
instance by a decisive interposition.
The answer of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego is
truly magnificent in its unflinching courage. It is : " O
Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer thee a
word concerning this.- If our God whom we serve be
able to deliver us. He will deliver us from the burning
fiery furnace, and out of thy hand, O king. But if not,^
be it known unto thee, O king,'' that we will not serve
thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou
hast set up."
By the phrase " if our God be able " no doubt as to
God's power is expressed. The word " able " merely
means '* able in accordance with His own plans." ^
The three children knew well that God can deliver, and
that He has repeatedly delivered His saints. Such
deliverances abound on the sacred page, and are men-
tioned in the Dream of Gerontius : —
" Rescue him, O Lord, in this his evil hour,
As of old so many by Thy mighty power : —
' Exod. V. 2; Isa. xxxvi. 20; 2 Chron. xxxii. 13-17.
^ Dan. iii. 16. LXX., ov xP^'mv exoixev ; Vulg., non oportet nos. To
soften the brusqueness of the address, in which the Rabbis {e.g.
Rashi) rejoice, the LXX. add another ^ajiXev.
3 Jerome explains " But if not " by Quodsi nolnerit; and Theodoret
by eiVe oSc pijerai eire Kal ii-q.
* iii. 18. LXX., Kai totc (pavepbv <toi icrrai. Tert., from the Vet.
Itala, " tunc manifestum erit tibi " {Scorp., 8).
•■' Comp.Gen.xix.22 : "I cainiot do anything xmiW tliou be come thither."
176 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Enoch and Elias from the common doom ;
Noe from the waters in a saving home ;
Abraham from th' abounding guilt of Heathenesse,
Job from all his multiform and fell distress;
Isaac, when his father's knife was raised to slaj* ;
Lot from burning Sodom on its judgment-day ;
Moses from the land of bondage and despair ;
Daniel from the hungry lions in their lair ;
David from Golia, and the wrath of Saul ;
And the two Apostles from their prison-thrall."
But the willing martyrs were also well aware that in
many cases it has not been God's purpose to deliver
His saints out of the peril of death ; and that it has
been far better for them that they should be carried
heavenwards on the fiery chariot of martyrdom. They
were therefore perfectly prepared to find that it was the
will of God that they too should perish, as thousands of
God's faithful ones had perished before them, from the
tyrannous and cruel hands of man ; and they were
cheerfully willing to confront that awful extremit3\
Thus regarded, the three words ^^ And if not " are among
the sublimest words uttered in all Scripture They
represent the truth that the man who trusts in God will
continue to say even to the end, " Though He slay me,
yet will I trust in Him." The}' are the triumph of faith
over all adverse circumstances. It has been the glorious
achievement of man to have attained, by the inspiration
of the breath of the Almighty, so clear an insight into
the truth that the voice of duty must be obeyed to
the very end, as to lead him to defy every combination
of opposing forces. The gay lyrist of heathendom
expressed it in his famous ode, —
"justum ct tenacem propositi virum
Non civium ardor prava jubentium
Non vultus instantis tyranni
Mcnte quatit solida."
THE IDOL OF GOLD, AND THE FAITHFUL THREE 177
It is man's testimony to his indomitable belief that
the things of sense are not to be valued in comparison
to that high happiness which arises from obedience to
the law of conscience, and that no extremities of agony-
are commensurate with apostasy. This it is which,
more than anything else, has, in spite of appearances,
shown that the spirit of man is of heavenly birth, and
has enabled him to unfold
"The wings within him wrapped, and proudly rise
Redeemed from earth, a creature of the skies."
For wherever there is left in man any true manhood,
he has never shrunk from accepting death rather than
the disgrace of compliance with what he despises and
abhors. This it is which sends our soldiers on the
forlorn hope, and makes them march with a smile upon
the batteries which vomit their cross-fires upon them ;
" .md so die by thousands the unnamed demigods."
By virtue of this it has been that all the martyrs have,
"with the irresistible might of their weakness," shaken
the solid world.
On hearing the defiance of the faithful Jews— abso-
lutely firm in its decisiveness, yet perfectly respectful
in its tone — the tyrant was so much beside himself,
that, as he glared on Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-
nego, his very countenance was disfigured. The furnace
was probably one used for the ordinary cremation
of the dead.^ He ordered that it should be heated
' Cremation prevailed among the Accadians, and was adopted by
the Babylonians (G. Bertin, Bab. ami Orient. Records, i. 17-21). Fire
was regarded as the great purifier. In the Catacombs the scene of
the Tliree Children in the fire is common. They are painted walking
12
178 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
.seven times hotttr than it was wont to be heated/ and
certain men of mighty strength who were in his army
were bidden to bind the three youths and fling them
into the raging flames. So, bound in their hosen, their
tunics, their long mantles,'^ and their other garments,
they were cast into the seven-times-heated furnace. The
king's commandment was so urgent, and the " tongue
of flame " was darting so fiercely from the horrible
kiln, that the executioners perished in planting the
ladders to throw them in, but they themselves fell into
the midst of the furnace.
The death of the executioners seems to have at-
tracted no special notice, but immediately afterwards
Nebuchadrezzar started in amazement and terror from
his throne, and asked his chamberlains,^ " Did we not
cast three men bound into the midst of the fire ? "
" True, O king," they answered.
in a sort of open cistern full of flames, with doors beneath. The
Greek word is mfiivos (Matt. xiii. 42), " a calcining furnace."
' It seems verj' needless to introduce here, as Mr. Dcane does in
Bishop Eliicott's commentary, the notion of the seven Maskim or
demons of Babylonian mjlhology. In the Song of the Three Children
the flames stream out forty-nine (7 x 7) cubits. Comp. Isa. xxx. 26.
* The meaning of these articles of dress is only conjectural: they
are — (l) Sarbalin, perhaps "trousers," LXX. (rapa/Scipot, Vulg. 6?'rtcca? ;
(2) Patisli, LXX. Tidpai, Vulg. iiarcc; (3) Kar'bla, LXX. TrepiKvrjfudfs,
Vulg. calceanientn. It is useless to repeat all the guesses. Sarbala
is a "tunic" in the Talmud, Arab, sirbal; and some connect Patisli
with the Greek iriTaaos. Judging from Assyrian and Babylonian
dress as represented on the monuments, the youths were probably
clad in turbans (the Median KavvaKT]), an inner tunic (the Median
KOLvdvi), an outer mantle, and some sort of leggings {aHoxurides). It
is interesting to compare with the passage the chapter of Herodotus
(i. 190) about the Babylonian dress. He says they wore a linen
tunic reaching to the feet, a woollen over-tunic, a white shawl, and
slippers. It was said to be borrowed from the dress of Semiramis.
^ Chald., hudtlaUrin ; LXX., ot (/)fXoi tvv ^aciXtws.
THE IDOL OF GOLD, AND THE FAITHFUL THREE 179
" Behold," he said, ** I see four men loose, walking
in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt,
and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the
gods I " 1
Then the king approached the door of the furnace of
fire, and called, " Ye servants of the Most High God,"
come forth." Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego
came out of the midst of the fire ; and all the satraps,
prefects, presidents, and court chamberlains gathered
round to stare on men who were so .completely un-
touched by the fierceness of the flames that not a hair
of their heads had been singed, nor their hosen
shrivelled, nor was there even the smell of burning
upon them.^ According to the version of Theodotion,
the king worshipped the Lord before them, and he
then published a decree in which, after blessing God
for sending His angel to deliver His servants who
trusted in Him, he somewhat incoherently ordained
that " every people, nation, or language which spoke any
blasphemy against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abed-nego, should be cut in pieces, and his house made a
dunghill : since there is no other god that can deliver
after this sort."
' The A. v., " like the Son of God," is quite untenable. The expres-
sion may mean a heavenly or an angelic being (Gen. vi. 2 ; Job i. 6).
So ordinary an expression does not need to be superfluously illus-
trated by references to the Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions, but
tliey may be found in Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, 128 and passim.
- LXX., 6 Beds rdv dfQv, 6 v\pi<TTos. Comp. 2 Mace. iii. 31; Mark
V. 7 ; Luke viii. 28; Acts xvi. 17, from which it will be seen that it
was not a Jewish expression, though it often occurs in the Book of
Enoch (Dillmann, p. 98).
^ So in Persian history the Prince Siawash clears himself from a
false accusation in the reign of his father Kai Kaoos by passing
through the fire (Malcolm, Hist, of Persia, i. 38).
i8o THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Then the king — as he had done before — promoted
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in the province of
Babylon.^
Henceforth they disappear ahke from history, tradi-
tion, and legend ; but the whole magnificent Haggada
is the most powerful possible commentary on the words
of Isa. xliii. 2 : " When thou walkest through the fire
thou shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle
upon thee." ^
How powerfully the story struck the imagination of
the Jews is shown by the not very apposite Song
of the Three Children, with the other apocryphal
additions. Here we are told that the furnace was
heated " with rosin, pitch, tow, and small wood ; so that
the flame streamed forth above the furnace forty and
nine cubits. And it passed through, and burned those
Chaldeans it found about the furnace. But the angel
of the Lord came down into the furnace together with
Azarias and his fellows, and smote the flame of the fire
out of the oven ; and made the midst of the furnace as
it had been a moist whistling wind,^ so that the fire
touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled
them."*
In the Talmud the majestic limitations of the Biblical
' Comp. Psalm xvi. 12: "We went through fire and water, and
Thou broughtest us out into a safe place."
■^ Comp. Gen. xxiv. 7 ; Exod. xxiii. 20 ; Deut. xxxvi. I. The phrase
applied to Joshua the high priest (Zech. iii. 2), " Is not this a brand
plucked out of the burning?" originated the legend that, when the
false prophets Ahab and Zedekiah had been burnt by Nebuchadrezzar
(Jer. xxix. 22), Joshua had been saved, though singed. This and
other apocryphal stories illustrate the evolution of Haggadoth out of
metaphoric allusions.
' Tcvivixa. voTiov Sia<TvpL^ov, "a dewy wind, whistling continually."
* Song of the Three Children, 23-27.
THE IDOL OF GOLD, AND THE FAITHFUL THREE iSi
story are sometimes enriched with touches of imagina-
tion, but more often coarsened by tasteless exhibitions
of triviahty and rancour. Thus in the Vayyikra Rabba
Nebuchadrezzar tries to persuade the youths by fantastic
misquotations of Isa. x. lo, Ezek. xxiii. 14, Deut.
iv. 28, Jer. xxvii. 8 ; and they refute him and end with
clumsy plays on his name, telling him that he should
bark (nabacli) like a dog, swell like a water-jar {cod),
and chirp like a cricket (Jsirtsir), which he immediately
did — i.e., he was smitten with lycanthropy.^
In Sanhedrin, f. 93, I, the story is told of the adulterous
false prophets Ahab and Zedekiah, and it is added that
Nebuchadrezzar offered them the ordeal of fire from
which the Three Children had escaped. They asked
that Joshua the high priest might be with them, think-
ing that his sanctity would be their protection. When
the king asked why Abraham, though alone, had been
saved from the fire of Nimrod, and the Three Children
from the burning furnace, and yet the high priest
should have been singed (Zech. iii. 2), Joshua answered
that the presence of two wicked men gave the fire
power over him, and quoted the proverb, ** Two dry
sticks kindle one green one."
In Pesachin, f. 118, i, there is a fine imaginative pas-
sage on the subject, attributed to Rabbi Samuel of
Shiloh :—
" In the hour when Nebuchadrezzar the wicked threw
Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah into the midst of the
furnace of fire, Gorgemi, the prince of the hail, stood
before the Holy One (blessed be He !) and said, ' Lord
of the world, let me go down and cool the furnace.'
' No,' answered Gabriel ; ' all men know that hail
' Vay. Rab., xxv. I (Wiinsche, Bibliotheca Rabbinica),
1 82 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
quenches fire;^ but I, the prince of fire, will go down
and make the furnace cool within and hot without, and
thus work a miracle within a miracle.' The Holy One
(blessed be He !) said unto him, ' Go down.' In the
self-same hour Gabriel opened his mouth and said,
* And the truth of the Lord endureth for ever.' "
Mr. Ball, who quotes these passages from Wiinsche's
Bibliotheca Rabhinica in his Introduction to the Song
of the Three Children,^ very trul}' adds that many
Scriptural commentators wholly lack the orientation
derived from the study of Talmudic and Midrashic
literature which is an indispensable preliminary to a
right understanding of the treasures of Eastern thought.
They do not grasp the inveterate tendency of Jewish
teachers to convey doctrine by concrete stories and
illustration.s, and not in the form of abstract thought.
" The doctrine is everything ; the mode of presentation has
no independent valued To make the story the first
consideration, and the doctrine it was intended to
convey an after-thought, as we, with our dry Western
literalness are predisposed to do, is to reverse the
Jewish order of thinking, and to inflict unconscious
injustice on the authors of many edifying narratives of
antiquity.
The part pla3'ed by Daniel in the apocryphal Story
of Susanna is probably suggested b}' the meaning of
his name : *' Judgment of God." Both that story and
Bel and the Dragon are in their way effective fictions,
though incomparably inferior to the canonical part of
the Book of Daniel.
And the startling decree of Nebuchadrezzar finds
its analogy in the decree published by Antiochus the
' Ecclus. xviii. i6 : " Shall not the dew assuage the heat ? "
* Speakers Cuinnienlary, on the Apocrypha, ii. 305-307.
THE IDOL OF GOLD, AND THE FAITHFUL THREE 183
Great to all his subjects in honour of the Temple at
Jerusalem, in which he threatened the infliction of heavy
fines on any foreigner who trespassed within the limits
of the Holy Court.^
' Jos., yinti., XII. iii. 3; Jahn, Hcbr. Coiiinwiiwcalth, § xc.
CHAPTER IV
THE BABYLONIAN CEDAR, AND THE STRICKEN
DESPOT
" Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a
fall." — Prov. xvi. i8.
THRICE alread}', in these magnificent stories, had
Nebuchadrezzar been taught to recognise the
existence and to reverence the power of God. In this
chapter he is represented as having been brought to
a still more overwhelming conviction, and to an open
acknowledgment of God's supremacy', by the lightning-
stroke of terrible calamity.
The chapter is dramatically thrown into the form of
a decree which, after his recovery and shortly before
his death, the king is represented as having promul-
gated to " all people, nations, and languages that dwell
in all the earth." ^ But the literary form is so abso-
lutely subordinated to the general purpose — which is
to show that where God's "judgments are in the earth
the inhabitants of the earth will learn righteousness," ^
■ — that the writer passes without any difficulty from the
first to the third person (iv. 20-30). He does not
hesitate to represent Nebuchadrezzar as addressing all
' Comp. I Mace. i. 41, 42: "And the king [Antiochus Epiphanes]
wrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be one people, and every
one should leave his laws."
■^ Isa. xxvi. 9.
184
BABYLONIAN CEDAR, AND THE STRICKEN DESPOT 185
the subject nations in favour of the God of Israel, even
placing in his imperial decree a cento of Scriptural
phraseology.
Readers unbiassed by a-priori assumptions, which
are broken to pieces at every step, will ask, " Is it
even historically conceivable that Nebuchadrezzar (to
whom the later Jews commonly gave the title of
Ha-Rashmtg, ' the wicked ') could ever have issued such
a decree ? " ^ They will further ask, " Is there any
shadow of evidence to show that the king's degrading
madness and recovery rest upon any real tradition ? "
As to the monuments and inscriptions, they are
entirely silent upon the subject ; nor is there any trace
of these events in any historic record. Those who,
with the school of Hengstenberg and Pusey, think that
the narrative receives support from the phrase of
Berossus that Nebuchadrezzar ** fell sick and departed
this life when he had reigned forty-three years," must
be easily satisfied, since he says very nearly the same
of Nabopolassar.^ Such writers too much assume that
immemorial prejudices on the subject have so com-'
pletely weakened the independent intelligence of their
readers, that they may safely make assertions which,
' Professor Fuller follows them in supposing that the decree is really
a letter written by Daniel, as is shown by the analogy of similar
documents, and the attestation (!) of the LXX. {apxh ''^s ^TrtcrroX'^s).
He adds, " The undertone of genuineness which makes itself so
inobtrusively felt to the Assj-rian scholar when reading it, is quite
sufficient to decide the question of authenticity " ! Such remarks are meant
only for a certain circle of readers already convinced. If they were
true, it would be singular that scarcely one living Assyriologist
accepts the authenticity of Daniel ; and Mr. Bevan calls this " a
narrative which contains scarcely anything specifically Babylonian. "
^ See Jos. c. Ap., I. 20, eixirecri^v els appwariav, /xfTrfWd^aro tov ^lov
(of Nebuchadrezzar) ; and I. 19 of Nabopolassar.
1 86 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
in matters of secular criticism, would be set aside as
almost ciiildishly nugatory.
It is different with the testimony of Abydenus, quoted
by Eusebius.^ Abydenus, in his book on the Assyrians^
quoted from Megasthenes the story that, after great
conquests, " Nebuchadrezzar " (as the Chaldean story
goes), " when he had ascended the roof of his pa/ace,
was inspired by some god or other, and cried aloud, * I,
Nebuchadrezzar, announce to you the future calamity
which neither Bel m}' ancestor, nor our queen Beltis,
can persuade the Fates to avert. There shall come
a Persian, a mule, who shall have your own gods as
his allies, and he shall make you slaves. Moreover,
he who shall help to bring this about shall be the son
of a Median woman, the boast of the Assyrian. Would
that before his countrymen perish some whirlpool or
flood might seize him and destroy him utterly ; ^ or
else would that he might betake himself to some other
place, and might be driven to the desert, where is no city
nor track of men, where wild beasts seek their food and
birds fly hither and thither! Would that among rocks
and mountain clefts he might wander alone ! And as
for me, may I, before he imagines this, meet with some
happier end ! ' When he had thus prophesied, he suddenly
vanished^
I have italicised the passages which, amid immense
differences, bear a remote analogy to the story of this
chapter. To quote the passage as any proof that the
writer of Daniel is narrating literal history is an extra-
ordinary misuse of it.
Megasthenes flourished b.c. 323, and wrote a book
' Prap. Ev., Ix. 41.
- I follow the better readings which Mr, Bevan adonts from Von
Gutschmid and Toup.
BABYLONIAN CEDAR, AND THE STRICKEN DESPOT 187
which contained many fabulous stories, three centuries
after the events to which he alludes. Abydenus, author
of Assyn'aca, was a Greek historian of still later, and
uncertain, date. The writer of Daniel may have met
with their works, or, quite independently of them, he
may have learned from the Babylonian Jews that there
was some strange legend or other about the death of
Nebuchadrezzar. The Jews in Babylonia were more
numerous and more distinguished than those in Pales-
tine, and kept up constant communication with them.
So far from any historical accuracy about Babylon in
a Palestinian Jew of the age of the Maccabees being
strange, or furnishing any proof that he was a con-
temporary of Nebuchadrezzar, the only subject of
astonishment would be that he should have fallen into
so many mistakes and inaccuracies, were it not that
the ancients in general, and the Jews particularly, paid
little attention to such matters.
Aware, then, of some dim traditions that Nebuchad-
rezzar at the close of his life ascended his palace roof
and there received some sort of inspiration, after which
he mysteriously disappeared, the writer, giving free
play to his imagination for didactic purposes, after the
common fashion of his age and nation, worked up
these slight elements into the stately and striking
Midrash of this chapter. He too makes the king mount
his palace roof and receive an inspiration ; but in his
pages the inspiration does not refer to "the mule"
or half-breed, Cyrus, nor to Nabunaid, the son of a
Median woman, nor to any imprecation pronounced
upon them, but is an admonition to himself; and the
imprecation which he denounced upon the future
subverters of Babylon is dimly analogous to the fate
Vv^hich fell on his own head. Instead of making him
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
" vanish " immediately afterwards, the writer makes
him fall into a beast-madness for " seven times," after
which he suddenly recovers and publishes a decree
that all mankind should honour the true God.
Ewald thinks that a verse has been lost at the
beginning of the chapter, indicating the nature of the
document which follows ; but it seems more probable
that the author began this, as he begins other chapters,
with the sort of imposing overture of the first verse.
Like Assur-bani-pal and the ancient despots, Nebu-
chadrezzar addresses himself to " all people in the
earth," and after the salutation of peace ^ says that
he thought it right to tell them " the signs and wonders
that the High God hath wrought towards me. How
great are His signs, and how mighty are His wonders !
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His
dominion is from generation to generation." ^
He goes on to relate that, while he was at ease and
secure in his palace,'^ he saw a dream which affrighted
him, and left a train of gloomy forebodings. As usual he
summoned the whole train of Khakhamim, Ashshaphtm,
Mekashshaphim, Kasduii^ Qiartiimmim^ and Gazerhn,
to interpret his dream, and as usual they failed to do
so. Then lastly, Daniel, surnamed Belteshazzar, after
Bel, Nebuchradrezzar's god,* and " chief of the
magicians," ^ in whom was " the spirit of the holy
gods," is summoned. To him the king tells his dream.
' Comp. Ezra iv. '], vii. 12.
- If Nebuchadrezzar wrote this edict, he must have been very
familiar with the language of Scripture. See Dent. vi. 22 ; Isa.
viii. l8; Psalm Ixxviii. 12-16, cvi. 2; Mic. iv, 7, etc.
^ Hcykal, "palace"; Bab., ikalbi. Comp. Amos viii. 3. See the
palace described in Layard, Nineveh and Babylon.
* A mistake of the writer. See supra, p. 129.
^ Rab-charttmtmaya.
BABYLONIAN CEDAR, AND THE STRICKEN DESPOT 189
The writer probably derives the images of the dream
from the magnificent description of the King of Assyria
as a spreading cedar in Ezek. xxxi. 3-18 : —
" Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with
fair branches, and with a shadowing sliroud, and of
an high stature ; and his top was among the thick
boughs. The waters nourished him, the deep made him
to grow. . . . Therefore his stature was exalted above
all the trees of the field ; and his boughs were multiplied,
and his branches became long by reason of many
waters. All the fowls of the air made their nests in
his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts
of the field bring forth their young, and under his
shadow dwelt all great nations. . . . The cedars in
the garden of God could not hide him . . . nor was any
tree in the garden of God like him in his beauty. . . .
Therefore thus saith the Lord God : Because thou art
exalted in stature ... I will deliver him into the hand
of the mighty one of the nations. . . . And strangers,
the terrible of the nations, have cut him off, and have
left him. Upon the mountains and in all the valleys
his branches are broken . . . and all the people of the
earth are gone down from his shadow, and have left
him. . . . r made the nations to shake at the sound of
his fall."
We may also compare this dream with that of
Cambyses narrated by Herodotus ^ : " He fancied that
a vine grew from the womb of his daughter and
overshadowed the whole of Asia. . . . The magian
interpreter expounded the vision to foreshow that the
offspring of his daughter would reign over Asia in
his stead."
' Herod., i. 108.
I go THE BOOK OF DANIEL
So too Nebuchadrezzar in his dream had seen a
tree in the midst of the earth, of stately height, which
reached to heaven and overshadowed the world, with
fair leaves and abundant fruit, giving large nourishment
to all mankind, and shade to the beasts of the field
and fowls of the heaven. The LXX. adds with glowing
exaggeration, " The sun and moon dwelled in it, and
gave light to the whole earth. And, behold, a watcher
['?r] ^ and a holy one [(jaddisJi] "- came down front
heaven, and bade, Hew down, and lop, and strip the
tree, and scatter his fruit, and scare away the beasts
and birds from it, but leave the stump in the greening
turf bound by a band of brass and iron, and let it
be wet with heaven's dews," — and then, passing from
the image to the thing signified, *' and let his portion
be with the beasts in the grass of the earth. Let his
heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart
be given unto him, and let seven times pass over
him." We are not told to whom the mandate is given
— that is left magnificently vague. The object of this
" sentence of the watchers, and utterance of the holy
ones," is that the living may know that the Most High
is the Supreme King, and can, if He will, give rule
even to the lowliest. Nebuchadrezzar, who tells us
in his inscription that " he never forgave impiety," has
to learn that he is nothing, and that God is all, — that
** He puUeth down the mighty from their seat, and
exalteth the humble and meek."^
' "l*y. Comp. Mai. ii. 12 (perhaps "the watchman and him that
answereth"). LXX., ^776X05 ; Theodot., iypriyopos.
''■ Comp. Deut. xxxiii. 2 ; Zech. xiv. 5; Psahn Ixxxix. 6; Job v. I, etc.
^ The LXX., in its free manipulation of the original, adds that the
king saw the dream fulfilled. In one day the tree was cut down, and
its destruction completed in one hour.
BABYLONIAN CEDAR, AND THE STRICKEN DESPOT 191
This dream Nebuchadrezzar bids Daniel to interpret,
"because thou hast the spirit of a II0I3' God in thee."
Before we proceed let us pause for a moment to
notice the agents of the doom. It is one of the never-
sleeping ones — an '/r and a holy one — who flashes
down from heaven with the mandate ; and he is only
the mouthpiece of the whole body of the watchers and
holy ones.
Generally, no doubt, the phrase means an angelic
denizen of heaven. The LXX. translates watcher by
" angel." Theodotion, feeling that there is something
technical in the word, which only occurs in this chapter,
renders it by e'cp. This is the first appearance of the
term in Jewish literature, but it becomes extremely
common in later Jewish writings — as, for instance, in
the Book of Enoch. The term " a holy one " ^ connotes
the dedicated separation of the angels ; for in the Old
Testament holiness is used to express consecration and
setting apart, rather than moral stainlessness.^ The
"seven watchers" are alluded to in the post-exilic
Zechariah (iv. 10) : ** They see with joy the plummet
in the hand of Zerubbabel, even those seven, the eyes of
the Lord ; they run to and fro through the whole
earth." In this verse Kohut ^ and Kuenen read
" watchers " ('Mm) for " eyes " ('iinm), and we find these
seven watchers in the Book of Enoch (chap. xx.). We
see as an historic fact that the familiarity of the Jews
with Persian angclology and demonology seems to have
developed their views on the subject. It is only after
the Exile that we find angels and demons playing a
more prominent part than before, divided into classes,
' Comp. Zech. xiv. 5 ; Psalm Ixxxix. 6.
-' See Job xv. 15.
^ Dr. A. Kohut, Die jildische Angelologie, p. 6, n. 17.
192 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
and even marked out by special names. The Apo-
crypha becomes more precise than the canonical books,
and the later pseudepigraphic books, which advance still
further, are left behind by the Talmud. Some have
supposed a connexion between the seven watchers
and the Persian amschashpands} The shedim, or evil
spirits, are also seven in number, —
"Seven are they, seven are they!
In the channel of the deep seven are they,
In the radiance of heaven seven are they!"'-
It is true that in Enoch (xc. 91) the prophet sees
" the first six white ones," and we find six also in
Ezek. ix. 2, On the other hand, we find seven in
Tobit : " I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels
which present the prayers of the saints, and which go
in and out before the glory of the Holy One." ^ The
names are variously given ; but perhaps the commonest
are Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, Raphael, and Ragiiel.*
In the Babylonian mythology seven deities stood at
the head of all Divine beings, and the seven planetary
spirits watched the gates of Hades.''
To Daniel, when he had heard the dream, it seemed
so full of portentous omen that " he was astonished
' For a full examination of the subject see Oehler, Tlieol. of the
O. T., § 59, pp. 195 ff.; Schultz, Alttest. Theol,^. 555; Hamburger,
Real-Encycl., i., s.v. "Engel"; Professor Fuller, Speaker's Commcii-
taty, on the Apocrypha, Tobit, i., 171-183.
* Sayce, Records of the Past, iy. 140. •
^ The number seven is not, however, found in all texts.
* The Jewish tradition admits that the names of the angels came
from Persia (Jiosh Hashanah, f. 56, i ; Bereshith Rabba, c. 48 ;
Riehm, R. W. B., i. 381).
* Descent of Ishtar, Records of the Past, i. 141. Botta found seven
rude figures buried under the thresholds of doors.
BABYLONIAN CEDAR, AND, THE STRICKEN DESPOT 193
for one hour." ' Seeing his agitation, the king bids
him take courage and fearlessly interpret the dream.
But it is an augury of fearful visitation ; so he begins
with a formula intended as it were to avert the threatened
consequences. " My Lord," he exclaimed, on recover-
ing voice, " the dream be to them that hate thee, and
the interpretation to thine enemies." ^ The king would
regard it as a sort of appeal to the averting deities
(the Roman Di Averninci), and as analogous to the
current formula of his hymns, " From the noxious
spirit may the King of heaven and the king of earth
preserve thee ! " ^ He then proceeds to tell the king
that the fair, stately, sheltering tree — "it is thou, O
king " ; and the interpretation of the doom pronounced
upon it is that he should be driven from men, and
should dwell with the beasts of the field, and be
reduced to eat grass like the oxen, and be wet with the
dew of heaven, " and seven times shall pass over thee,
till thou shalt know that the Most High ruleth in the
kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will."
But as the stump of the tree was to be left in the fresh
green grass, so the kingdom should be restored to him
when he had learnt that the Heavens do rule.
The only feature of the dream which is left uninter-
preted is the binding of the stump with bands of iron
and brass. Most commentators follow Jerome in making
it refer to the fetters with which maniacs are bound,*
' The Targum understands it '" for a moment."
* The wish was quite natural. It is needless to follow Rashi, etc., in
making this an address to God, as though it were a prayer to Him
that ruin might fall on His enemy Nebuchadrezzar. Comp. Ov., Fast.,
iii. 494 : " Eveniat nostris hostibus ille color."
^ Records 0/ the Past, i. 133.
■• Mark v, 3.
13
194 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
but there is no evidence tliat Nebuchadrezzar was so
restrained, and the bands round the stump are for its
protection from injury. This seems preferable to the
view which explains them as " the stern and crushing
sentence under which the king is to lie." ^ Josephus
and the Jewish exegetes take the " seven times " to be
" seven years " ; but the phrase is vague, and the event
is evidently represented as taking place at the close of
the king's reign. Instead of using the awful name
of Jehovah, the prophet uses the distant periphrasis of
" the Heavens." It was a phrase which became common
in later Jewish literature, and a Babylonian king v/ould
be familiar with it ; for in the inscriptions we find
Maruduk addressed as the " great Heavens," the father
of the gods.^
Having faithfully interpreted the fearful warning of
the dream, Daniel points out that the menaces of doom
are sometimes conditional, and may be averted or de-
layed. "Wherefore," he says, " O king, let my counsel
be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righ-
teousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the
poor ; if so be there may be a healing of thy error." ^
This pious exhortation of Daniel has been severely
criticised from opposite directions.
The Jewish Rabbis, in the very spirit of bigotry and
false religion, said that Daniel was subsequently thrown
into the den of lions to punish him for the crime of
tendering good advice to Nebuchadrezzar ; * and, more-
' Bevan, p. 92.
' In the Mishnah often Shanmyhii ; N. T., 17 jSacriXeia tQv ovpavuiv.
■^ Or, as in A.V. and Hitzig, "if it may be a lengthening of thy
tranquillity"; but Ewald re&ds arukah, "healing" (Isa. Iviii. 8), for
arkah.
* Baba Bathra, f. 4, I
BABYLONIAN CEDAR, AND THE STRICKEN DESPOT 195
over, the advice could not be of any real use ; " for even
if the nations of the world do righteousness and mercy
to prolong their dominion, it is only sin to them." '
On the other hand, the Roman Catholics have made
it their chief support for the doctrine of good works,
which is so severely condemned in the twelfth of our
Articles.
Probably no such theological questions remotely
entered into the mind of the writer. Perhaps the words
should be rendered " break off thy sins by righteous-
ness," rather than (as Theodotion renders them)
''redeem thy sins by almsgiving."^ It is, however,
certain that among the Pharisees and the later Rabbis
there was a grievous limitation of the sense of the
word tzedakah, " righteousness," to mean merely alms-
giving. In Matt. vi. i it is well known that the
reading "alms" (ikerj/xoo-vvrjv) has in the received text
displaced the reading "righteousness" (StKatoavvTjv) ;
and in the Talmud " righteousness " — like our shrunken
misuse of the word " charity " — means almsgiving. The
value of " alms " has often been extravagantly exalted.
Thus we read : " Whoever shears his substance for
the poor escapes the condemnation of hell " (^Nedartm,
f. 22, I).
InBaba Bathra, f 10, i,and Rosh HashatiaJi, f 16, 2,
we have " a//ns delivereth from death," as a gloss on
the meaning of Prov. xi. 4.^
' Berachulh, f. lo, 2 ; f. 57, 2.
'' Theodot., ras a/iaprias aov ev iXerj/j.ocrui'ai.s XurpuaaL ; Vulg.,
peccaia (ita eleeniosynis redime. Comp. Psalm cxii. 9. This exalta-
tion of almsgiving is a characteristic of later Judaism (Ecclus. iv. 5-10 ;
Tobit iv. II).
3 Comp. Prov. x. 2, xvi. 6 ; Sitkka, f. 49, 2. The theological and
ethical question involved is discussed by Calvin, Instt., iii. 4 ; Bel-
larmine, De Poeniteitt., ii. 6 (Behrmann).
196 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
We cannot tell that the writer shared these views.
He probably meant no more than that cruelty and
injustice were the chief vices of despots, and that the
only way to avert a threatened calamity was by re-
penting of them. The necessity for compassion in the
abstract was recognised even by the most brutal
Assyrian kings.
We are next told the fulfilment of the dark dream.
The interpretation had been meant to warn the king ;
but the warning was soon forgotten by one arrayed
in such absolutism of imperial power. The intoxication
of pride had become habitual in his heart, and twelve
months sufficed to obliterate all solemn thoughts. The
Septuagint adds that " he kept the words in his heart " ;
but the absence of any mention of rewards or honours
paid to Daniel is perhaps a sign that he was rather
offended than impressed.
A year later he was walking on the flat roof of the
great palace of the kingdom of Babylon. The sight
of that golden city in the zenith of its splendour may
well have dazzled the soul of its founder. He tells us
in an inscription that he regarded that city as the apple
of his eye, and that the palace was its most glorious
ornament.^ It was in the centre of the whole country ;
it covered a vast space, and was visible far and wide.
It was built of brick and bitumen, enriched with cedar
and iron, decorated with inscriptions and paintings.
The tower " contained the treasures of my imperishable
royalty ; and silver, gold, metals, gems, nameless and
priceless, and immense treasures of rare value," had
' It is now called Kasr, but the Arabs call it Mnjelibe, " The
Ruined.'
BABYLONIAN CEDAR, AND THE STRICKEN DESPOT 197
been lavished upon it. Begun " in a happy month,
and on an auspicious day/' it had been finished in
fifteen days by armies of slaves. This palace and its
celebrated hanging gardens were one of the wonders
of the world.
Beyond this superb edifice, where now the hyaena
prowls amid miles of debris and mounds of ruin, and
where the bittern builds amid pools of water, lay the
unequalled city. Its walls were three hundred and
eighty feet high and eighty-five feet thick, and each
side of the quadrilateral they enclosed was fifteen miles
in length. The mighty Euphrates flowed through the
midst of the city, which is said to have covered a space
of two hundred square miles ; and on its farther bank,
terrace above terrace, up to its central altar, rose the
huge Temple of Bel, with all its dependent temples and
palaces.^ The vast circuit of the walls enclosed no
mere wilderness of houses, but there were interspaces
of gardens, and palm-groves, and orchards, and corn-
land, sufficient to maintain the whole population. Here
and there rose the temples reared to Nebo, and Sin
the moon-god, and Mylitta, and Nana, and Samas, and
other deities ; and there were aqueducts or conduits
for water, and forts and palaces ; and the walls were
pierced with a hundred brazen gates. When Milton
wanted to find some parallel to the city of Pandemonium
in Paradise Lost, he could only say, —
"Not Babylon,
Nor great Alcairo such magnificence
Equall'd in all their glories, to enshrine
Belus or Serapis their gods, or seat
Their kings, when Egypt with Assyria strove
In wealth and luxury."
' Birs-Nimrod (Grote, Hist, of Greece, III., chap. xix. ; Layard,
Nin. and Bab., chap. ii.).
198 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Babylon, to use the phrase of Aristotle, included, not
a city, but a nation.^
Enchanted by the glorious spectacle of this house
of his royalty and abode of his majesty, the despot
exclaimed almost in the words of some of his own
inscriptions, " Is not this great Babylon that I have
built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my
treasures and for the honour of my majesty ? "
The Bible always represents to us that pride and
arrogant self-confidence are an offence against God.
The doom fell on Nebuchadrezzar " while the haughty
boast was still in the king's mouth." The suddenness
of the Nemesis of pride is closely paralleled by the
scene in the Acts of the Apostles in which Herod
Agrippa I. is represented as entering the theatre at
Caesarea to receive the deputies of Tyre and Sidon.
He was clad, says Josephus, in a robe of intertissued
silver, and when the sun shone upon it he was sur-
rounded with a blaze of splendour. Struck by the
scene, the people, when he had ended his harangue to
them, shouted, " It is the voice of a god, and not of a
man ! " Herod, too, in the story of Josephus, had re-
ceived, just before, an ominous warning ; but it came
to him in vain. He accepted the blasphemous adula-
tion, and immediately, smitten by the angel of God, he
was eaten of worms, and in three days was dead.'^
And something like this we see again and again in
what the late Bishop Thirlwall called the " irony of
history " — the very cases in which men seem to have
been elevated to the very summit of power only to
heighten the dreadful precipice over which they
• Arist., Polit., III. i. 12. He says that three days after its capture
some of its inhabitants were still unaware of the fact.
■■^ Acts xii. 20-23; Jos., Antt., XIV. viii. 2.
BABYLONIAN'CEDAR, AND THE STRICKEN DESPOT 199
immediately fall. He mentions the cases of Persia,
which was on the verge of ruin, when with lordly
an'ogance she dictated the Peace of Antalcidas ; of
Boniface VIII., in the Jubilee of 1300, immediately pre-
ceding his deadly overthrow ; of Spain, under Philip II.,
struck down by the ruin of the Armada at the zenith
of her wealth and pride. He might have added the
instances of Ahab, Sennacherib, Nebuchadrezzar, and
Herod Antipa^ ; of Alexander the Great, dying as the
fool dieth, drunken and miserable, in the supreme hour
of his conquests ; of Napoleon, hurled into the dust,
first by the retreat from Moscow, then by the overthrow
at Waterloo.
"While the word was yet in the king's mouth,
there fell a voice from heaven." It was what the
Talmudists alluded to so frequently as the Bath Qol,
or *' daughter of a voice," which came sometimes for
the consolation of suffering, sometimes for the admoni-
tion of overweening arrogance. It announced to him
the fulfilment of the dream and its interpretation. As
with one lightning-flash the glorious cedar was blasted,
its leaves scattered, its fruits destroyed, its shelter
reduced to burning and barrenness. Then somehow
the man's heart was taken from him. He was driven
forth to dwell among the beasts of the field, to eat
grass like oxen. Taking himself for an animal in his
degrading humiliation he lived in the open field. The
dews of heaven fell upon him. His unkempt locks
grew rough like eagles' feathers, his uncut nails like
claws. In this condition he remained till "seven
times " — some vague and sacred cycle of days — passed
over him.
His penalty was nothing absolutely abnormal. His
illness is well known to science and national tradition
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
as that form of hypochondriasis in which a man takes
himself for a wolf (l3'canthrop3^), or a dog (kynanthropy),
or some other animal.^ Probably the fifth-century
monks, who were known as Boskoi, from feeding on
grass, may have been, in many cases, half maniacs who
in time took themselves for oxen. Cornill, so far as
I know, is the first to point out the curious circumstance
that a notion as to the points of analogy between
Nebuchadnezzar (thus spelt) and Antiochus Epiphanes
may have been strengthened by the Jewish method of
mystic commentary known in the Talmud as Gcmatria,
and in Greek as Isopscphisni. That such methods, in
other forms, were known and practised in early times
we find from the substitution of Sheshach for Babel
in Jer. xxv. 26, li. 41, and of Tabeal (by some crypto-
gram) for Remaliah in Isa. vii. 6 ; and of lebh kamai
(" them that dwell in the midst of them ") for Kasdim
(Chaldeans) in Jer. li. i. These forms are only expli-
cable by the interchange of letters known as Athbash,
Albam, etc. Now Nebuchadnezzar = 423 : —
3 = 50; 3 = 2; 1 = 6; D = 2o; 1 = 4; 3 = 50; N = i;
>; = 90 ; "I = 200 = 423.
And Antiochus Epiphanes = 423 : —
N=i; 3 = 50; L3 = 9; ''=10; 1 = 6; D = 2o; 1 = 6;
D = 60 = 1 62
N = I ; D = 70 ; '' = 10 ; Q = 70 ; 3 = 50 ; D = 60 = 261
423.
The madness of Antiochus was recognised in the
popular change of his name from Epiphanes to Epimanes.
But there were obvious points of resemblance between
' For furtlier information on this subject I may refer to my paper
on " Rabbinic Exegesis," Expositor, v. 362-378. The fact that there are
slight variations in spelling Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus Epiphanes
is of no importance.
BABYLONIAN CEDAR, AND THE STRICKEN DESPOT 201
these potentates. Both of them conquered Jerusalem.
Both of them robbed the Temple of its holy vessels.
Both of them were liable to madness. Both of them
tried to dictate the religion of their subjects.
What happened to the kingdom of Babylon during
the interim is a point with which the writer does not
trouble himself. It formed no part of his story or of
his moral. There is, however, no difficulty in sup-
posing that the chief mages and courtiers may have
continued to rule in the king's name — a course rendered
all the more easy by the extreme seclusion in which
most Eastern monarchs pass their lives, often unseen by
their subjects from one year's end to the other. Alike
in ancient days as in modern — witness the cases of
Charles VI. of France, Christian VII. of Denmark,
George III. of England, and Otho of Bavaria — a king's
madness is not allowed to interfere with the normal
administration of the kingdom.
When the seven "times" — whether years or brief
periods — were concluded, Nebuchadrezzar "lifted up
his eyes to heaven," and his understanding returned
to him. No further light is thrown on his recovery,
which (as is not infrequently the case in madness) was
as sudden as his aberration. Perhaps the calm of the
infinite azure over his head flowed into his troubled
soul, and reminded him that (as the inscriptions say)
" the Heavens " are " the father of the gods." ^ At any
rate, with that upward glance came the restoration of
his reason.
He instantly blessed the Most High, " and praised
and honoured Him who liveth for ever, whose dominion
is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from
' Psalm cxxiii. I. See Eurypides, Baccha; 699.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
generation to generation/ And all the inhabitants of
the earth are reputed as nothins^ ; and He doeth accord-
ing to His will ^ in the army of heaven, and among the
inhabitants of the earth ; ^ and none can stay His hand,
or say unto Him, What doest Thou ? " *
Then his lords and counsellors reinstated him in his
former majesty ; his honour and brightness returned to
him ; he was once more " that head of gold " in his
kingdom.^
He concludes the story with the words : " Now I
Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King
of heaven, all whose works are truth and His ways
judgment ;'' and those that walk in pride He is able to
abase." ^
He died b.c. 561, and was deified, leaving behind him
an invincible name.
' Exod. xvii. 16.
"^ Psalm cxlv. 13.
^ Isa. xxiv. 21, xl, 15, 17. For the "host of heaven" ((rrparia
ovpduLos, Luke ii. 13) see Isa. xl. 26 ; Job. xxxvili. 7 ; i Kings xxii. 19 ;
Enoch xviii. 14-16 ; Matt. xi. 25.
* Isa. xliii. 13, xlv. 9; Psalm cxxxv. 6; Job ix. 12; Eccles. viii. 4.
The phrase for " to reprove " is literally " to strike on the hand," and
is common in later Jewish writers.
* Dan. ii. 38. ' Exod. xviii. 11.
* Psalm xxxiii. 4.
CHAPTER V
THE FIERY INSCRIPTION
" That night they slew him on his father's throne
He died unnoticed, and the hand unknown :
Crownless and sceptreless Belshazzar lay,
A robe of purple round a form of clay."
Sir E. Arnold.
IN this chapter again we have another magnificent
fresco-picture, intended, as was the last — but under
circumstances of aggravated guilt and more terrible
menace — to teach the lesson that " verily there is a
God that judgeth the earth."
The truest way to enjoy the chapter, and to grasp
the lessons which it is meant to inculcate in their proper
force and vividness, is to consider it wholly apart from
the difficulties as to its literal truth. To read it aright,
and duly to estimate its grandeur, we must relegate
to the conclusion of the story all worrying questions,
impossible of final solution, as to whom the writer
intended by Belshazzar, or whom by Darius the Mede.^
All such discussions are extraneous to edification, and
• The question has already been fully discussed {supra, pp. 54-57).
The apologists say that —
I. Belshazzar was Evil-merodach (Niebuhr, Wolff, Bishop Westcott,
Zockler, Keil, etc.), as the son of Nebuchadrezzar (Dan. v. 2, li, l8,
22), and his successor (Baruch i. II, 12, where he is called Balthasar,
as in the LXX.). The identification is impossible (see Dan. v. 28,
203
204 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
in no way affect either the consummate skill of the
picture or the eternal truths of which it is the symbolic
expression. To those who, with the present writer,
are convinced, by evidence from every quarter — from
philology, history, the testimony of the inscriptions,
and the manifold results obtained by the Higher
Criticism — that the Book of Daniel is the work of some
holy and highly gifted Chasid in the days of Antiochus
Epiphanes, it becomes clear that the story of Belshazzar,
whatever dim fragments of Babylonian tradition it
may enshrine, is really suggested by the profanity of
Antiochus Epiphanes in carrying off, and doubtless
subjecting to profane usage, many of the sacred vessels
of the Temple of Jerusalem.^ The retribution which
awaited the wayward Seleucid tyrant is prophetically
intimated by the menace of doom which received such
31); for Evil-merodach (b.c. 561) was murdered by his brother-in-law
Neriglissar (b.c. 559). Besides, the Jews were well acquainted with
Evil-merodach (2 Kings xxv. 27; Jer. lii. 31.
2. Belshazzar was Nabunald (St. Jerome, Ewald, Winer, Herzfeld,
Auberlen, etc.). But the usurper Nabunaid, son of a Rab-mag, was
wholly unlike Belshazzar; and so far from being slain, he was
pardoned, and sent by Cyrus to be Governor of Karmania, in which
position he died.
3. Belshazzar was the son of Nabunaid. But though Nabunaid had
a son of the name he was never king. We know nothing of any
relationship between him and Nebuchadrezzar, nor does Cyrus in
his records make the most distant allusion to him. The attempt to
identify Nebuchadrezzar with an unknown Marduk-sar-utsur, men-
tioned in Babylonian tablets, breaks down ; for Mr. Boscawen {Soc.
Bibl., in § vi., p. 108) finds that he reigned before Nabunaid. Further,
the son of Nabunaid perished, not in Babylon, but in Accad.
' Sec I Mace. i. 21-24. He "entered proudly into the sanctuary,
and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all
the vessels thereof, and the table of the shewbread, and the pouring
vessels, and the vials, and the censers of gold. . . . He took also the
silver and the gold, and the precious vessels : also he took the hidden
THE FIERY INSCRIPTION 205
immediate fulfilment in the case of the Babylonian
King. The humiliation of the guilty conqueror, " Nebu-
chadrezzar the Wicked," who founded the Empire of
Babylon, is followed by the overthrow of his dynasty
in the person of his " son," and the capture of his vast
capital.
" It is natural," sa3^s Ewald, " that thus the picture
drawn in this narrative should become, under the hands
of our author, a true night-piece, with all the colours
of the dissolute, extravagant riot of luxurious passion
and growing madness, of ruinous bewilderment, and
of the mysterious horror and terror of such a night
of revelry and death."
The description of the scene begins with one of those
crashing overtures of which the writer duly estimated
the effect upon the imagination.
" Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a
thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the
thousand." ^ The banquet may have been intended
as some propitiatory feast in honour of Bel-merodach.
It was celebrated in that palace which was a wonder
of the world, with its winged statues and splendid
spacious halls. The walls were rich with images of
the Chaldeans, painted in vermilion and exceeding in
dyed attire — those images of goodly youths riding on
goodly horses, as in the Panathenaic procession on the
frieze of the Acropolis — the frescoed pictures, on which,
in the prophet's vision, Aholah and Aholibah, gloated
treasures which he found," etc. Comp. 2 Mace. v. 11-14; Diod. Sic,
XXXI. i. 48. The value of precious metals which he carried off
was estimated at one thousand eight hundred silver talents — about
;i^350,ooo (2 Mace. v. 21).
' The LXX. saj's "two thousand." Comp. Esther i. 3, 4. Jerome
adds, "Unusquisque secundum suam bibit Ktatem."
2o6 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
in the chambers of secret imagery/ Belshazzar's
princes were there, and his wives, and his concubines,
whose presence the Babylonian custom admitted,
though the Persian regarded it as unseemly.^ The
Babylonian banquets, like those of the Greeks, usually
ended by a Koinos or revelry, in which intoxication
was regarded as no disgrace. Wine flowed freely.
Doubtless, as in the grandiose picture of Martin, there
were brasiers of precious metal, which breathed forth
the fumes of incense;^ and doubtless, too, there were
women and bo3's and girls with flutes and cymbals,
to which the dancers danced in all the orgiastic aban-
donment of Eastern passion. All this was regarded as
an element in the religious solemnity ; and while the
revellers drank their wine, hymns were being chanted,
in which they praised " the gods of gold and of silver,
of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone." That the
king drank wine before the thousand is the more
remarkable because usually the kings of the East
banquet in solitary state in their own apartments.*
Then the wild king, with just such a burst of folly
and irreverence as characterised the banquets of
Antiochus Epiphanes, bethought him of yet another
element of splendour with which he might make his
banquet memorable, and prove the superiority of his
' Ezek. xxiii. 15.
" Herod., i. 191, v. 18; Xen., Cyrop., V. ii. 28; Q. Curt., V. i. 38.
Theodotion, perhaps scandalised by the fact, omits the wives, and the
LXX. omits both wives and concubines,
^ Layard, Nin. and Bab., ii. 262-269.
■* Athen., Deipnos, iv. 145. Sec the bas-relief in the British Museum
of King Assur-bani-pal drinking wine with his queen, while the head
of his vanquished enemy, Te-Umman, King of Elam, dangles from a
palm-branch full in his view, so that he can feast his eyes upon it,
None others are present except the attendant eunuchs.
THE FIERY INSCRIPTION 207
own victorious gods over those of other nations. The
Temple of Jerusalem was famous over all the world,
and there were few monarchs who had not heard of
the marvels and the majesty of the God of Israel.
Belshazzar, as the " son " of Nebuchadrezzar, must —
if there was any historic reality in the events narrated
in the previous chapter — have heard of the " signs and
wonders " displayed by the King of heaven, whose
unparalleled awfulness his " father " had publicly
attested in edicts addressed to all the world. He must
have known of the Rab-mag Daniel, whose wisdom,
even as a boy, had been found superior to that of all
the Charhanniiin and Ashshaphim ; and how his three
companions had been elevated to supreme satrapies ;
and how the}^ had been delivered unsinged from the
seven-times-heated furnace, whose flames had killed
his father's executioners. Under no conceivable circum-
stances could such marvels have been forgotten ; under
no circumstances could they have possibly failed to
create an intense and a profound impression. And
Belshazzar could hardly fail to have heard of the dreams
of the golden image and of the shattered cedar, and of
Nebuchadrezzar's unspeakably degrading lycanthropy.
His "father" had publicly acknowledged — in a decree
published " to all peoples, nations, and languages that
dwell in all the earth " — that humiliation had come
upon him as a punishment for his overweening pride.
In that same decree the mighty Nebuchadrezzar — only
a year or two before, if Belshazzar succeeded him — had
proclaimed his allegiance to the King of heaven ; and
in all previous decrees he had threatened " all people,
nations, and languages " that, if they spake anything
amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-
nego, they should be cut in pieces, and their houses
2o8 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
made a dunghill.^ Yet now Belshazzar, in the flush
of pride and drunkenness/" gives his order to insult
this God with deadly impiety by publicly defiling the
vessels of His awful Temple,^ at a feast in honour of
his own idol deities !
Similarly Antiochus Epiphanes, if he had not been
half mad, might have taken warning, before he insulted
the Temple and the sacred vessels of Jerusalem, from
the fact that his father, Antiochus the Great, had met
his death in attempting to plunder the Temple at
Elymais (b.c. 187). He might also have recalled the
celebrated discomfiture — however caused — of Helio-
dorus in the Temple of Jerusalem.'*
Such insulting and reckless blasphemy could not go
unpunished. It is fitting that the Divine retribution
should overtake the king on the same night, and that
the same lips which thus profaned with this wine the
holiest things should sip the wine of the Divine poison-
cup, whose fierce heat must in the same night prove
fatal to himself. But even such sinners, drinking as
it were over the pit of hell, " according to a metaphor
used elsewhere,'' must still at the last moment be
warned by a suitable Divine sign, that it may be known
whether they will honour the truth." '^ Nebuchadrezzar
had received his warning, and in the end it had not
been wholly in vain. Even for Belshazzar it might
perhaps not prove to be too late.
For at this very moment ^ when the revelry was at
' Dan. iii. 29.
' The Babylonians were notorious for drunken revels. Q. Curt.,
V. i., "Babylonii maxime in vinumet quae ebrietatem sequuntur, eflusi
sunt." ^ Psalm Iv. 15.
^ Dan. i. 2. Comp. i Mace. i. 21 ff. "* Ewald.
■* 2 Mace. iii. ' Comp. Dan. iii. 7.
THE FIERY INSCRIPTION 209
its zenith, when the whirl of excited self-exaltation was
most intense, when Judah's gold was " treading heavy on
the lips " — the profane lips — of satraps and concubines,
there appeared a portent, which seems at first to have
been visible to the king alone.
Seated on his lofty and jewelled throne, which
"Outshone the wealth of Ormuz or of Ind,
Or where the gorgeous East with richest hand
Showers on its kings barbaric pearl and gold,"
his eye caught somcthiug visible on the white stucco of
the wall above the line of frescoes^ He saw it over
the lights which crowned the- huge golden Nebrashta,
or chandelier.^ The fingers of a man's hand were
writing letters on the wall, and the king saw the hollow
of that gigantic supernatural palm.^
The portent astounded and horrified him. The
flush of youth and of wine faded from his cheek ; — " his
brightnesses were changed " ; his thoughts troubled
him ; the bands of his loins were loosed ; ' his knees
smote one against another in his trembling attitude,^ as
he stood arrested by the awful sight.
With a terrible cry he ordered that the whole familiar
tribe of astrologers and soothsayers should be sum-
moned. For though the hand had vanished, its trace
was left on the wall of the banqueting-chamber in
' See Layard, Nin. and Bab., ii. 269.
^ A word of uncertain origin. The Talmud uses it for the word
dido'? (the Greek Xa/xTrrfs).
•' "Hollow." Heb., />as; Theodot., a.(TTpaya\ov% ; Vulg., articnlos.
The word may mean " palm " of the hand, or sole of the foot
(Bevan).
* Psalm Ixix. 23. " Bands " — lit. " fastenings " ; Theodot., ffvvbeafjiol ;
Vulg., compages.
^ Comp. Ezek. vii. 17, and the Homeric \vto yovfara, Od., iv. 703 ;
Ov., Met., ii. 180, " genua intremuere timore."
14
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
letters of fire. And the stricken king, anxious to know
above all things the purport of that strange writing,
proclaims that he who could interpret it should be
clothed in scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his
neck, and should be one of the triumvirs of the kingdom.^
It was the usual resource ; and it failed as it had
done in every previous instance. The Babylonian magi
in the Book of Daniel prove themselves to be more
futile even than Pharaoh's magicians with their en-
chantments.
The dream-interpreters in all their divisions entered
the banquet-hall. The king was perturbed, the omen
urgent, the reward magnificent. But it was all in vain.
As usual they failed, as in every instance in which they
are introduced in the Old Testament. And their failure
added to the visible confusion of the king, whose livid
countenance retained its pallor. The banquet, in all its
royal magnificence, seemed likely to end in tumult and
confusion ; for the princes, and satraps, and wives, and
concubines all shared in the agitation and bewilderment
of their sovereign.
Meanwhile the tidings of the startling prodigy had
reached the ears of the Gebirah — the queen-mother —
who, as always in the East, held a higher rank than even
' Doubtless suggested by Gen. xli. 42 (comp. Herod., iii. 20; Xen.,
Anab., I. ii. 27; Cyrop., VIII. v. 18), as other parts of Daniel's story
recall that of Joseph. Comp. Esther vi. 8, 9. The word for " scarlet"
or red-purple is argona. The word for "chain" {Q'ri. hant'nika) is
in Theodotion rendered /j.avid.KTjs, and occurs in later Aramaic. The
phrase rendered "third ruler" is very uncertain. The inference
drawn from it in the S/nakers Comnicnlaiy — that Nabunaid was king,
and Bclshazzar second ruler — is purely nugatory. For the Hebrew
word talti cannot mean "third," which would be ""n vW. Ewald and
most Hebraists take it to mean " rule, as one of the board of three."
For " triumvir " comp. vi. 2.
THE FIERY INSCRIPTION
the reigning sultana/ She had not been present at —
perhaps had not approved of — the luxurious revel, held
when the Persians were at the very gates. But now,
in her young son's extremity, she comes forward to
help and advise him. Entering the hall with her
attendant maidens, she bids the king to be no longer
troubled, for there is a man of the highest rank — invari-
ably, as would appear, overlooked and forgotten till the
critical moment, in spite of his long series of triumphs
and achievements — who was quite able to read the
fearful augury, as he had often done before, when all
others had been foiled by Him who " frustrateth the
tokens of the liars and maketh diviners mad." " Strange
that he should not have been thought of, though " the
king thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made him
master of the whole college of mages and astrologers.
Let Belshazzar send for Belteshazzar, and he would
untie the knot and read the awful enigma." ^
Then, Daniel was summoned ; and since the king
"has heard of him, that the spirit of the gods is in him,
and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom
is found in him," and that he is one \\\\o can interpret
dreams, and unriddle hard sentences and untie knots,
' I Kings XV. 13. She is precariously identified by the apologists
with the Nitocris of Herodotus ; and it is imagined that she may have
been a daughter of Nsbuchadrezzar, married to Nabunaid before the
murder of Neriglissar.
'^ Isa. xliv. 25.
' The word Oisiriu, "knots," may mean "hard questions"; but Mr.
Bevan (p. 104) thinks there may be an allusion to knots used as magic
spells. (Comp. Sen., CEdip., loi, "Nodosa sortis verba et iuipk.xos
dolos.") He quotes Al-Baidawi on the Koran, Ixiii. 4, who says that
" a Jew casts a spell on Mohammed by tj'ing knots in a cord, and
hiding it in a well." But Gabriel told the prophet to send for the cord,
and at each verse of the Koran recited over it a knot untied itself.
See Records of the Past, iii. 141 ; and Duke, Rabb. Blumenlehre, 231.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
he shall have the scarlet robe, and the golden chain,
and the seat among the triumvirs, if he will read and
interpret the writing.
" Let thy gifts be thine, and thy rewards to another," ^
answered the seer, with fearless forthrightness : " yet,
O king, I will read and interpret the writing." Then,
after reminding him of the consummate power and
majesty of his father Nebuchadrezzar ; and how his
mind had become indurated with pride ; and how he
had been stricken with lycanthropy, " till he knew that
the Most High God ruled in the kingdom of men";
and that, in spite of all this, he, Belshazzar, in his
infatuation, had insulted the Most High God by pro-
faning the holy vessels of His Temple in a licentious
revelry in honour of idols of gold, silver, brass, iron,
and stone, which neither see, nor know, nor hear, — for
this reason (said the seer) had the hollow hand been
sent and the writing stamped upon the wall.
And now what was the writing ? Daniel at the first
glance had read that fiery quadrilateral of letters, look-
ing like the twelve gems of the high priest's ephod
with the mystic light gleaming upon them.
M.
N.
A.
M.
N.
A.
T.
Q.
L.
P.
R.
S.
' So Elisha, 2 Kings v. i6.
THE FIERY INSCRIPTION
213
Four names of weight.'
A
Mina.
A
Mina.
A
Shekel.
A
Half-mina.^
What possible meaning could there be in that ? Did
it need an archangel's colossal hand, flashing forth
upon a palace-wall to write the menace of doom, to have
inscribed no more than the names of four coins or
weights ? No wonder that the Chaldeans could not
interpret such writing I
It may be asked why they could not even read it,
since the words are evidently Aramaic, and Aramaic
was the common language of trade. The Rabbis say
that the words, instead of being written from right to
' The Menc is repeated for emphasis. In the Upharsin (ver. 25)
the u is merely the "and," and the word is slightly altered, perhaps
to make the paronomasia with " Persians " more obvious. According
to Buxtorf and Gesenius, peras, in the sense of "divide," is very rare
in the Targums.
- Journal Asiatiqite, 18S6. (Comp. Noldeke, Ztschr.filr Assyriologie,
i. 414-418; Kamphausen, p. 46.) It is M. Clermont-Ganneau who
has the credit of discovering what seems to be the true interpretation
of these mysterious words. M'ne (Heb. Maneh) is the Greek nva,
Lat. mina, which the Greeks borrowed from the Assyrians. Tekel
(in the Targum of Onkelos tikla) is the Hebrew shekel. In the
Mis/inah a half-mina is called /)«-rts, and an Assyrian weight in the
British Museum bears the inscription perash in the Aramaic character.
(See Bevan, p. 106 ; Schrader, s.v. " Mene " in Riehm, R. W. B.) Peres
is used for a half-mina in Yonia, f. 4, 4 ; often in the Talmud ; and in
Corp. Inscr, Sent., ii. 10 (Behrmann).
214
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
left, were written KiovrjSop, " pillar-wise," as the Greeks
called it. from above downwards : thus —
Si
n
J2
f2
1
P
i
i
D
h
K
^<
Read from left to right, they would look like gibberish ;
read from above downwards, they became clear as far
as the reading was concerned, though their interpreta-
tion might still be surpassingly enigmatic.
But words may stand for all sorts of mysterious
meanings ; and in the views of analogists — as those are
called who not only believe in the mysterious force and
fascination of words, but even in the physiological
quality of sounds — they may hide awful indications
under harmless vocables. Herein lay the secret.
A mina ! a mina ! Yes ; but the names of the
weights recall the word ni^nah, " hath numbered " : and
" God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it."
A shekel 1 Yes ; fqilta : " Thou hast been weighed
in a balance and found wanting."
Peres — a half-mina 1 Yes ; but pWisath : " Thy king-
dom has been divided, and given to the Medes and
Persians." ^
' The word occurs in Peres Uzza. There still, however, remain
some obviously unexplored mysteries about these words. Parono-
masia, as I showed long ago in other works, plays a noble and
profound part in the language of emotion ; and that the interpretation
should here be made to turn upon it is not surprising by any means.
We find it in the older prophets. Thus in Jer. i. il, 12: "What seest
thou ? And I said, I see a rod of an almond tree. Then said the
THE FIERY INSCRIPTION 215
At this point the story is very swiftly brought to a
conclusion, for its essence has been already given.
Daniel is clothed in scarlet, and ornamented with the
chain of gold, and proclaimed triumvir.^
But the king's doom is sealed ! " That night was
Bclshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, slain." His name
meant, " Bel ! preserve thou the king I " But Bel
bowed down, and Nebo stooped, and gave no help to
tlieir votary.
"Evil things in robes of sorrow
Assailed the monarch's high estate ;
Ah, woe is me ! for never morrow
Shall dawn upon him desolate !
And all about his throne the glory
That blushed and bloomed
Is but an ill-remembered story
Of the old time entombed."
" And Darius the Mede took the kingdom, being
about sixty-two years old."
Lord unto me, Thou hast well seen : for I will hasten My word to
perform it." The meaning here depends on the resemblance in
Hebrew between shaqeed, " an almond tree " (" a wakeful, or early
tree"), and shoqeed, "I will hasten," or "am wakeful over."
And that the same use of plays on words was still common in the
Maccabean epoch we see in the Story of Susanna. There Daniel
plays on the resemblance between cxiva, "a mastick tree," and
axlcTii, "shall cut thee in two"; and Trplcos, "a holm oak," and
Trpicrai, " to cut asunder." We may also point to the fine parono-
masia in the Hebrew of Isa. v. 7, Mic. i. 10-15, and other passages.
" Such a conceit," says Mr. Ball, " may seem to us far-fetched and
inappropriate ; but the Oriental mind delights in such htsiis verbornnt,
and the peculiar force of all such passages in the Hebrew prophets is
lost in our version because they have not been preserved in trans-
lation."
As regards the Medes, they are placed after the Persians in Isa.
xxi. 2, Esther i. 3, but generally before them.
' LXX., 'ihiOKev f^ovaiav avTui toO rpirov fiepovs ; Theodot., dpxovra
Tplrov. See supra, p. 210.
2i6 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
As there is no such person known as " Darius the
Mede," the age assigned to him must be due either to
some tradition about some other Darius, or to chrono-
logical calculations to which we no longer possess the
key.i
He is called the son of Achashverosh, Ahasuerus
(ix. i), or Xerxes. The apologists have argued that —
1. Darius was Cyaxares II., father of Cyrus, on the
authority of Xenophon's romance,^ and Josephus's echo
of it.^ But the Cyropcvdia is no authority, being, as
Cicero said, a non-historic fiction written to describe
an ideal kingdom.^ History knows nothing of a
Cyaxares II.
2. Darius was Astyages.^ Not to mention other im-
possibilities which attach to this view, Astyages would
have been far older than sixty-two at the capture of
Babylon by Cyrus. C3a-us had suppressed the Median
dynasty altogether some years before he took Babylon.
3. Darius was the satrap Gobryas, who, so far as
we know, only acted as governor for a few months.
But he is represented on the contrary as an extremely
absolute king, setting one hundred and twenty princes
" over the whole kingdom," and issuing mandates to
"all people, nations, and languages that dwell in all the
earth." Even if such an identification were admissible,
' The LXX. evidently felt some difficulty or followed some other
text, for they render it, " And Artaxerxes of the Medes took the king-
dom, and Darius full of days and glorious in old age." So, too,
Josephus {Antt., X. xi. 4), who says that "he was called by another
name among the Greeks."
'■^ Cyrop., I. V. 2.
^ Antt., X. xi. 4. This was the view of Vitnnga, Bertholdt,
Gesenius, Winer, Keil, Hcngstenbcrg, Havernick, etc.
' Ad. Q. Fratr., i. 8.
^ The view of Niebuhr and Westcott.
THE FIERY INSCRIPTION 217
it would not in the least save the historic accuracy of
the writer. This " Darius the Mede " is ignored by
history, and Cyrus is represented by the ancient re-
cords as having been the sole and undisputed king
of Babylon from the time of his conquest.^ " Darius
the Mede " probably owes his existence to a literal
understanding of the prophecies of Isaiah (xiii. 17) and
Jeremiah (li. ii, 28).
We can now proceed to the examination of the next
chapter unimpeded by impossible and half-hearted
hypotheses. We understand it, and it was meant to be
understood, as a moral and spiritual parable, in which
unverified historic names and traditions are utilised
for the purpose of inculcating lessens of courage and
faithfulness. The picture, however, falls far below
those of the other chapters in power, finish, and even
an approach to natural verisimilitude.
' See Herod., i. 109. The Median Empire fell B.C. 559 ; Babylon
was taken about b.c. 539. It is regarded as "important" that a late
Greek lexicographer, long after the Christian era, makes the vague
and wholly unsupported assertion that the " Daric " was named after
some Darius other than the father of Xerxes ! See supra, pp. 57-60.
CHAPTER VI
STOPPING THE MOUTHS OF LIONS
" Thou shalt tread upon the lion . . . the young Hon shalt thou
trample under thy feet." — Psalm xci. 13.
ON the view which regards these pictures as
powerful parables, rich in spiritual instructive-
ness, but not primarily concerned with historic accuracy,
nor even necessarily with ancient tradition, we have
seen how easily " the great strong fresco-strokes "
which the narrator loves to use " may have been
suggested to him by his diligent study of the
Scriptures."
The first chapter is a beautiful picture which serves
to set forth the glory of moderation and to furnish a
vivid concrete illustration of such passages as those of
Jeremiah : " Her Nazarites were purer than snow ; they
were whiter than milk ; they were more ruddy in body
than rubies ; their polishing was of sapphire." '
The second chapter, closely reflecting in many of its
details the story of Joseph, illustrated how God " frus-
trateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners
mad ; turneth wise men backward, and maketh their
knowledge foolish ; confirmeth the word of His servant,
and performeth the counsel of His messengers." ^
The third chapter gives vividness to the promise,
' Lam. iv. 7. - Isa. xliv. 25, 26.
218
STOPPING THE MOUTHS OF LION.S 219
" When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not
be burned, neither shall the llame kindle upon thee."^
The fourth chapter repeats the apologue of Ezekiel,
in which he compares the King of Assyria to a cedar
in Lebanon with fine branches, and with a shadowy
shroud, and fair by the multitude of his branches, so
that all the trees of Eden that were in the garden of
God envied him, but whose boughs were " broken by
all the watercourses until the peoples of the earth left
his shadow." ^ It was also meant to show that " pride
goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a
fall."^ It illustrates the words of Isaiah : " Behold, the
Lord, the Lord of hosts, shall lop the bough with terror ;
and the high ones of stature shall be hewn down, and
the haughty shall be humbled." ^
The fifth chapter gives a vivid answer to Isaiah's
challenge : " Let now the astrologers, the stargazers,
the monthly prognosticators, stand up and save thee
from these things which shall come upon thee."^ It
describes a fulfilment of his vision : " A grievous vision
is declared unto thee ; the treacherous dealer dealeth
treacherously, and the spoiler spoileth. Go up, O
Elam : besiege, O Media." " The more detailed prophecy
of Jeremiah had said : " Prepare against Babylon the
nations with the kings of the Medes . . . The mighty
men of Babylon have forborne to fight. . . . One post
shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet
another, to show the King of Babylon that his city is
taken at one end. ... In their heat I will make their
feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they shall
rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith
' Isa. xliii. 2. ^ Isa. x. 33.
'^ Ezek. xxxi. 2-15 ^ Isa. xlvii. 13.
^ Prov. xvi. 18. " Isa. xxi. 2.
220 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
the Lord. . . . How is Sheshach taken I ' and how is
the praise of the whole earth surprised I . . . And I will
make drunk her princes, and her wise men, her captains,
and her rulers, and her mighty men ; and they shall
sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the King,
whose name is the Lord of hosts." ^
The sixth chapter puts into concrete form such
passages of the Psalmist as : " My soul is among lions :
and I lie even among them that are set on fire, even
the sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows,
and their tongue a sharp sword ";^ and — "Break the
jaw-bones of the Hons, O Lord " ; ^ and — " They have cut
off my life in the dungeon, and cast a stone upon me""*: —
and more generally such promises as those in Isaiah :
" No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper ;
and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judg-
ment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the
servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of Me,
saith the Lord.'"*
This genesis of Haggadoth is remarkabl}'' illustrated
by the apocryphal additions to Daniel. Thus the History
of Susanna was ver}^ probably suggested by Jeremiah's
allusion (xxix. 22) to the two false prophets Ahab and
Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadrezzar burnt.'^ Similarly the
story of Bel and the Dragon is a fiction which ex-
pounds Jer. li. 44 : ** And I will punish Bel in Babylon,
' The word is a cabalistic cryptogram — an instance of Gcmatria—
for Babel.
^ Jer. li. 28-57.
" Psalm Ivii. 4.
■• Psalm Iviii. 6.
^ Lam. iii. 53.
" Isa. liv. 17.
' Sanhedrin, I. 93, I, See another story in Vayyikra Rabba, c. xix,
STOPPING THE MOUTHS OF LIONS 22 1
and I will bring forth out of his mouth that which he
hath swallowed up."^
Hitherto the career of Daniel had been personally
prosperous. We have seen him in perpetual honour
and exaltation, and he had not even incurred — though
he may now have been ninety years old — such early
trials and privations in a heathen land as had fallen
to the lot of Joseph, his youthful prototype. His three
companions had been potential martyrs ; he had not
even been a confessor. Terrible as was the doom
which he had twice been called upon to pronounce
upon Nebuchadrezzar and upon his kingdom, the stern
messages of prophecy, so far from involving him in
ruin, had only helped to uplift him to the supremest
honours. Not even the sternness of his bearing, and
the terrible severity of his interpretations of the flaming
message to Belshazzar, had prevented him from being
proclaimed triumvir, and clothed in scarlet, and de-
corated with a chain of gold, on the last night of the
Babylonian Empire. And now a new king of a new
dynasty is represented as seated on the throne ; and
it might well have seemed that Daniel was destined to
close his days, not only in peace, but in consummate
outward felicity.
Darius the Mede began his reign by appointing
one hundred and twenty princes over the whole king-
dom;^ and over these he placed three presidents. Daniel
is one of these " eyes " of the king.^ " Because an
' BereshWt Rabba, § 68.
^ The LXX. says 127, and Josephus {Antt., X. xi. 4) says 360
(comp. Esther i. I, viii. 9, ix. 3). Under Darius, son of H^-staspes,
there were only twenty divisions of the empire (Herod., iii. 89).
* Dan. vi. 2: "Of whom Daniel was" — not "first" as in A.V.,
but " one" R.V.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
excellent spirit was in him," he acquired preponderant
influence among the presidents ; and the king, con-
sidering that Daniel's integrity would secure him from
damage in the royal accounts, designed to set him over
the whole realm.
But assuming that the writer is dealing, not with the
real, but with the ideal, something would be lacking to
Daniel's eminent saintliness, if he were not set forth
as no less capable of martyrdom on behalf of his con-
victions than his three companions had been. From
the fiery trial in which their faithfulness had been
proved like gold in the furnace he had been exempt.
His life thus far had been a course of unbroken pros-
perity. But the career of a pre-eminent prophet and
saint hardly seems to have won its final crown, unless
he also be called upon to mount his Calvary, and to
share with all prophets and all saints the persecutions
which are the invariable concomitants of the hundred-
fold reward.^ Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego had
been tested in early youth : the trial of Daniel is re-
served for his extreme old age. It is not, it could not
be, a severer trial than that which his friends braved,
nor could his deliverance be represented as more super-
natural or more complete, unless it were that they
endured only for a few moments the semblable violence
of the fire, while he was shut up for all the long hours
of night alone in the savage lions' den. There are,
nevertheless, two respects in which this chapter serves
as a climax to those which preceded it. On the one
hand, the virtue of Daniel is of a marked character in
that it \s positive, and not negative — in that it consists,
not in rejecting an overt sin of idolatry, but in con-
Matt, xix. 29.
STOPPING THE MOUTHS OF LIONS 223
tinuing the private duty of prayer ; on the other, the
decree of Darius surpasses even those of Nebuchadrezzar
in the intensity of its acknowledgment of the supremacy
of Israel's God.
Daniel's age — for by this time he must have passed
the allotted limit of man's threescore years and ten —
might have exempted him from envy, even if, as the
LXX. adds, " he was clad in purple." But jealous that
a captive Jew should be exalted above all the native
satraps and potentates by the king's favour, his col-
leagues the presidents (whom the LXX. calls " two
young men") and the princes "r«s//ffl?" before the
king with a request which they thought would enable
them to overthrow Daniel b}^ subtlety. Faithfulness
is required in stewards ; ^ and they knew that his faith-
fulness and wisdom were such that they would be
unable to undermine him in any ordinary way. There
was but one point at which they considered him to be
vulnerable, and that was in any matter which affected
his allegiance to an alien worship. But it was difficult
to invent an incident which would give them the sought-
for opportunity. All polytheisms are as tolerant as
their priests will let them be. The worship of the
Jews in the Exile was of a necessarily private nature.
They had no Temple, and such religious gatherings as
they held were in no sense unlawful. The problem
of the writer was to manage his Haggada in such a
way as to make private prayer an act of treason ; and
the difficulty is met — not, indeed, without violent im-
probability, for which, however, Jewish haggadists
cared little, but with as much skill as the circumstances
permitted.
' I Cor. iv. 2.
224 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
The phrase that they "made a tumult " or " rushed " ^
before the king, which recui-s in vi. 1 1 and 1 8, is
singular, and looks as if it were intentionally grotesque
by way of satire. The etiquette of Oriental courts is
always most elaborately stately, and requires solemn
obeisance. This is why ^schylus makes Agamemnon
say, in answer to the too-obsequious fulsomeness of
his false wife, —
" /cat rdXXa, ixt] yvvaiKos iv rp6'rrois ifxi
d^pvve, n.T}Si ^ap^dpov (purbt dlKijv
Xo-M^dnrerh /36ci/xa vpoaxnpris ifxol."
" Besides, prithee, use not too fond a care
To me, as to some virgin whom thou strivest
To deck with ornaments, whose softness looks
Softer, hung round the softness of her youth ;
Ope not the mouth to me, nor cry amain
As at the footstool of a man of the East
Prone on the ground : so stoop not thou to me ! "
That these "presidents and satraps," instead of trying
to win the king by such flatteries and "gaping upon
him an earth-grovelling howl," should on each occasion
have " rushed " into his presence, must be regarded
either as a touch of intentional sarcasm, or, at any rate,
as being more in accord with the rude familiarities of
licence permitted to the courtiers of the half-mad
Antiochus, than with the prostrations and solemn
approaches which since the days of De'ioces would
alone have been permitted by any conceivable " Darius
the Mede."
However, after this tumultuous intrusion into the
king's presence, " all the presidents, governors, chief
' Dan. vi. 6, charggishoo; Vulg., surripnerunt regi; A.V. marg.,
"came tumultuously." The word is found in the Targum in Ruth i. 19
(licvan).
STOrriNG THE MOUTHS OF LIONS 225
chamberlains," present to him the monstrous but
unanimous request that he would, by an irrevocable
interdict, forbid that any man should, for thirty days,
ask any petition of any god or man, on peril of being
cast into the den of lions.^
Professor Fuller, in the Speaker's Commentary, con-
siders that " this chapter gives a valuable as well as an
interesting insight into Median customs," because the
king is represented as living a secluded life, and keeps
lions, and is practically deified I The importance of
the remark is far from obvious. The chapter presents
no particular picture of a secluded life. On the contrar}'-,
the king moves about freely, and his courtiers seem
to have free access to him whenever they choose. As
for the semi-deification of kings, it was universal
throughout the East, and even Antiochus II. had openly
taken the surname of Theos, the "god." Again, every
Jew throughout the world must have been very well
aware, since the days of the Exile, that Assyrian and
other monarchs kept dens of lions, and occasionally
flung their enemies to them.^ But so far as the decree
of Darius is concerned, it may well be said that through-
out all history no single parallel to it can be quoted.
Kings have very often been deified in absolutism ; but
not even a mad Antiochus, a mad Caligula, a mad
Elagabalus, or a mad Commodus ever dreamt of passing
an interdict that no one was to prefer any petition
either to God or man for thirty days, except to himself!
A decree so preposterous, which might be violated by
millions many times a day without the king being
' The den {goob or gubbd) seems to mean a vault. The Hebrew
word for " pit " is boor.
* See Layard, Nin. and Bab., i. 335, 447, 475 ; Smith, Hist, oj
Assur-batti-pal, xxiv.
15
226 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
cognisant of it, would be a proof of positive imbecility
in any king who should drf.am of making it. Strange,
too — though a matter of indifference to the writer,
because it did not affect his moral lesson — that Darius
should not have noticed the absence of his chief
official, and the one man in whom he placed the fullest
and deepest confidence.
The king, without giving another thought to the
matter, at once signs the irrevocable decree.
It naturally does not make the least difference to
the practices or the purpose of Daniel. His duty
towards God transcends his duty to man. He has
been accustomed, thrice a day, to kneel and pray to
God, with the window of his upper chamber open,
looking towards the Kibleh of Jerusalem ; ^ and the
king's decree makes no change in his manner of daily
worship.
Then the princes "rushed" thither again, and found
Daniel praying and asking petitions before his God.
Instantly they go before the king, and denounce
Daniel for his triple daily defiance of the sacrosanct
decree, showing that " he regardeth not thee, O king,
nor the decree that thou hast signed."
Their denunciations produced an effect very different
from what they had intended. They had hoped to
raise the king's wrath and jealousy against Daniel,
as one who lightly esteemed his divine autocracy.
' The chamber was perhaps supposed to be a vwepQov on the roof.
The "kneeling" in prayer (as in 1 Kings viii. 54; 2 Chron. vi. 13;
Ezra ix. 5) is in the East a less common attitude than standing. See
I Sam. i. 26; Mark xi. 25; Luke xviii. Ii: but see Neh. viii. 6;
Gen. xxiv. 26.
The Temple, and Jerusalem, was the Kibleh, or sacred direction of
devotion (l Kings viii. 44; Ezek. viii. 16; Psalm v. 7, xxviii.2, Iv. 17,
etc.).
STOPPING THE MOUTHS OF LIONS 227
But so far from having any such ignoble feeling, the
king only sees that he has been an utter fool, the
dupe of the worthlessness of his designing courtiers.^
All his anger was against himself for his own folly ;
his sole desire was to save the man whom for his
integrity and ability he valued more than the whole
crew of base plotters who had "entrapped him against
his will into a stupid act of injustice. All day, till
sunset, he laboured hard to deliver Daniel.- The
whole band of satraps and chamberlains feel that this
will not do at all; so they again "rush" to the king
to remind him of the Median and Persian law that
no decree which the king has passed can be altered.^
To alter it would be a confession of fallibility, and
therefore an abnegation of godhead ! Yet the strenuous
action which he afterwards adopted shows that he
might, even then, have acted on the principle which
the mages laid down to Cambyses, son of Cyrus, that
"the king can do no wrong." There seems to be no
reason why he should not have told these " tumultuous "
princes that if they interfered with Daniel they should
be flung into the lions' den. This would probably
have altered their opinion as to pressing the royal
infallibility of irreversible decrees.
But as this resource did not suggest itself to
Darius, nothing could be done except to cast Daniel
into the den or " pit " of lions ; but in sentencing him
the king offers the prayer, " May the God whom thou
servest continually deliver thee ! " * Then a stone is
' Comp. Mark vi. 26.
- Theodot., dywvif6/ue»'os.
^ Esther i. 19, viii. 8.
■* '• Courage, till to-morrow " (?a;y Trpwt Odpfiei), adds the LXX.
228 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
laid over the mouth of the pit, and, for tlie sake of
double securit}', that even the king may not have the
power of tampering with it, it is scaled, not only with
his own seal, but also with that of his lords.*
From the lion-pit the king went back to his palace,
but onl}'^ to spend a miserable night. He could take
no food.'^ No dancing-women were summoned to his
harem ; ^ no sleep visited his eyelids. At the first
glimpse of morning he rose,^ and went with haste
to the den — taking the satraps with him, adds the LXX.
— and cried with a sorrowful voice, *' O Daniel, servant
of the living God, hath thy God whom thou servest
continuall}' been able to deliver thee from the lions ? "
And the voice of the prophet answered, " O king,
live for ever I My God sent His angel,*^ and shut the
mouths of the lions, that they should not destroy me :
forasmuch as before Him innocency was found in me ;
and also before thee, ,0 king, have I committed no
offence."
Thereupon the happy king ordered that Daniel should
be taken up out of the lion-pit ; and he was found to be
unhurt, because he believed in his God.
We would have gladly spared the touch of savagery
with which the story ends. The deliverance of Daniel
' Comp. Lam. iii. 53. Seal-rings arc very ancient (Herod., i. 195).
It is useless to speculate on the construction of the lion-pit. The
only opening mentioned seems to have been at the top ; but there
must necessarily have been side-openings also.
" Theodot., iKOifirjOri dSenrvos. Daniel, on the other hand, in the
apocryphal Haggada, gets his dinner miraculously from the Prophet
Habakkuk.
' He.b., dachaian; R.V., "instruments of music"; R.V. marg.,
"dancing-girls"; Gcsenius, ZOckler, etc., "concubines."
* Theodot., rb irpwl h ru (purl.
* Comp. Dan. iii. 8; Psalm xxxiv. 7-10; Acts xii. II.
STOPPING THE MOUTHS OF LIONS 229
made no diflference in the guilt of his accusers. What
they had charged him with was a fact, and was a
transgression of the ridiculous decree which they had
caused the king to pass. But his deliverance was
regarded as a Divine judgment upon them — as proof
that vengeance should fall on them. Accordingly, not
they only, but, with the brutal solidarity of revenge
and punishment wiiich, in savage and semi-civilised
races, confounds the innocent with the guilty, their
wives and even their children were also cast into the
den of lions, and they did not reach the bottom of the
pit before *' the lions got hold of them and crushed all
their bones." ^ They are devoured, or caught, by the
hungry lions in mid-air.
"Then King Darius wrote to all the nations, com-
munities, and tongues who dwell in the whole world,
May your peace be multiplied ! I make a decree, That
in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and
fear before the God of Daniel : for He is the living God,
and steadfast for ever, and His kingdom that which
shall not be destroyed, and His dominion even unto the
end. He delivereth and He rescueth, and He worketh
signs and wonders in heaven and in earth, who delivered
Daniel from the power of the lions."
The language, as in Nebuchadrezzar's decrees, is
purely Scriptural." What the Median mages and the
Persian fire-worshippers would think of such a decree,
' Comp. Esther ix. 13, 14 ; Josh. vii. 24 ; 2 Sam. xxi. 1-6. The LXX.
modifies the savagery of the story by making the vengeance fall only
on the two young men who were Daniel's fellow-presidents. But
comp. Herod., iii. 119 ; Am. Marcell., xxiii. 6; and " Ob noxam unius
omnis propinquitas perit," etc.
- Psalm xxix. I, x. 16, etc. Professor Fuller calls it "a Masdean
colouring in the language " !
230 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
and whether it produced the slightest effect before it
vanished without leaving a trace behind, are questions
with which the author of the story is not concerned.
He merel}' adds that Daniel prospered in the reign
of Darius and of Cyrus the Persian.
PART III
THE PROPHETIC SECTION OF THE BOOK
231
CHAPTER I
VISION OF THE FOUR IVILD BEASTS
W''E now enter upon the second division of the
Book of Daniel — the apocalyptic. It is un-
questionably inferior *to the first part in grandeur and
importance as a whole, but it contains not a few great
conceptions, and it was well adapted to inspire the
hopes and arouse the heroic courage of the persecuted
Jews in the terrible days of Antiochus Epiphanes.
Daniel now speaks in the first person,^ whereas
throughout the historic section of the Book the third
person has been used.
In the form of apocalypse which he adopts he had
already had partial precursors in Ezekiel and Zechariah ;
but their symbolic visions were far less detailed and
developed — it may be added far more poetic and
classical — than his. And in later apocalypses, for
which this served as a model, little regard is paid
to the grotesqueness or incongruity of the symbols,
if only the intended conception is conveyed. In no
previous writer of the grander days of Hebrew litera-
ture would such symbols have been permitted as horns
which have e3-es and speak, or lions from which the
wings are plucked, and which thereafter stand on their
feet as a man, and have a man's heart given to them.
' Except in the heading of chap. x.
234 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
The vision is dated, " In tlie first year of Belshazzar,
King of Babylon." It therefore comes chronologically
between the fourth and fifth chapters. On the pseud-
epigraphic view of the Book we may suppose that this
date is merely a touch of literary verisimilitude, designed
to assimilate the prophecies to the form of those uttered
by the ancient prophets ; or perhaps it may be intended
to indicate that with three of the four empires — the
Babylonian, the Median, and the Persian — Daniel had
a personal acquaintance. Beyond this we can see no
significance in the date ; for the predictions which are
here recorded have none of that immediate relation to
the year in which they originated which we see in the
writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah. Perhaps the verse
itself is a later guess or gloss, since there are slight
variations in Theodotion and the LXX. Daniel, we are
told, both saw and wrote and narrated the dream.'
In the vision of the night he had seen the four winds
of heaven travailing, or bursting forth, on the great
sea ; ^ and from those tumultuous waves came four
immense wild beasts, each unlike the other.
The first was a lion, with four eagles' wings. The
wings were plucked off, and it then raised itself from
the earth, stood on its feet like a man, and a man's
heart was given to it.
The second was like a bear, raising itself on one side,
' In the opinion of Lagarde and others this chapter — which is
not noticed by Josephus, and which Meinhold thinks cannot have
been written by the author of chap, ii., since it says nothing of the
sufferings or deliverance of Israel— did not belong to the original form
of the Book. Lagarde thinks that it was written a.d. 6y, after the
persecution of the Christians by Nero.
* St. Ephraem Syrus says, "The sea is the world." Isa. xvii. 12,
xxvii. I, xxxii. 2. But compare Dan. vii. 17; Ezek. xxix. 3; Rev.
xiii. I, xvii. 1-8, xxi.^i.
VISION OF THE FOUR WILD BEASTS 235
and having three ribs between its teeth ; and it is bidden
to "arise and devour much flesh."
The third is a leopard, or panther, with four wings
and four heads, to which dominion is given.
The fourth — a yet more terrible monster, which is
left undescribed, as though indescribable — has great
devouring teeth of iron, and feet that stamp and crush.*
It. has ten horns, and among them came up a little horn,
before which three of the others are plucked up by the
roots ; and this horn has eyes, and a mouth speaking-
great things.
Then the thrones were set for the Divine judges,^ and
the Ancient of Days seats Himself — His raiment as white
snow, His hair as bright wool. His throne of flames,
His wheels of burning fire. A stream of dazzling
fire goes out before Him. Thousand thousands stand
before Him ; ten thousand times ten thousand minister
to Him. The judgment is set; the books are opened.
The fourth monster is then slain and burned because of
the blaspheming horn ; the other beasts are suffered to
live for a season and a time, but their dominion is
taken away.^
But then, in the night vision, there came " one even
as a son of man " with the clouds of heaven, and is
brought before the Ancient of Days, and receives from
Him power and glory and a kingdom — an everlasting
dominion, a kingdom that shall not be destroyed — over
all people, nations, and languages.
' In the vision of the colossus in ii. 41-43 stress is laid on the
division of the fourth empire into stronger and weaker elements
(iron and clay). That point is here passed over.
'" A.V., "the thrones were cast down."
' In ii. 35, 44, the four empires are represented as finally destroyed.
236 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Such is the vision, and its interpretation follows.
The heart of Daniel "is pierced in the midst of its
sheath" by what he has seen, and the visions of his head
troubled him. Coming near to one of them that stood
by — the angelic ministrants of the Ancient of Days —
he begs for an interpretation of the vision.
It is given him with extreme brevity.
The four wild beasts represent four kings, the
founders of four successive kingdoms. But the ultimate
and eternal dominion is not to be with them. It is to
be given, till the eternities of the eternities, to " the holy
ones of the Lofty One." ^
What follows is surely an indication of the date of
the Book. Daniel is quite satisfied with this meagre
interpretation, in which no single detail is given as
regards the first three world-empires, which one would
have supposed would chiefly interest the real Daniel.
His whole curiosity is absorbed in a detail of the vision
of the fourth monster. It is all but inconceivable that
a contemporary prophet should have " felt no further
interest in the destinies which affected the great golden
Empire of Babylon under which he lived, nor in those
of Media and Persia, which were alread}' beginning to
loom large on the horizon, and should have cared only
for an incident in the story of a fourth empire as yet
unheard of, which was only to be fulfilled four centuries
later. The interests of every other Hebrew prophet
are always mainly absorbed, so far as earthly things
are concerned, in the immediate or not-far-distant future.
That is true also of the author of Daniel, if, as we have
had reason to see, he wrote under the rule of the
persecuting and blaspheming horn.
' A.V. marg., " high ones " — i.e., things or places.
VISION OF THE FOUR WILD BEASTS 237
In his appeal for the interpretation of this symbol
there are fresh particulars about this horn which had
eyes and spake very great things. We are told that
" his look was more stout than his fellows " ; and that
" he made war against the saints and prevailed against
them, until the Ancient of Days came. Then judgment
was given to the saints, and the time came that the
saints possessed the kingdom."
The interpretation is that the fourth beast is an
earth-devouring, trampling, shattering kingdom, diverse
from all kingdoms ; its ten horns are ten kings that
shall arise from it.^ Then another king shall arise,
diverse from the first, who shall subdue three kings,
shall speak blasphemies, shall wear out the saints, and
will strive to change times and laws. But after " a
time, two times, and a half,"^ the judgment shall sit,
and he will be annihilated, and his dominion shall be
given for ever to the people of the saints of the Most
High.
Such was the vision ; such its interpretation ; and
there can be no difficulty as to its general significance.
I. That the four empires, and their founders, are
not identical with the four empires of the metal colossus
in Nebuchadrezzar's dream, is an inference which,
apart from dogmatic bias, would scarcely have occurred
to any unsophisticated reader. To the imagination of
Nebuchadrezzar, the heathen potentate, they would
naturally present themselves in their strength and
towering grandeur, splendid and impassive and secure,
till the mysterious destruction smites them. To the
Jewish seer the}' present themselves in their cruel
' Not kingdoms, as in viii. 8.
- Comp. Rev. xii. 14; Luke iv. 25 ; James v, 17.
238 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
ferocit}' and headstrong ambition as destroying wild
beasts. The symboHsm would naturally occur to all
who were familiar with the winged bulls and lions
and other gigantic representations of monsters which
decorated the palace-walls of Nineveh and Babylon.
Indeed, similar imagery had already found a place on
the prophetic page.^
II. The turbulent sea, from which the immense
beasts emerge after the struggling of the four winds of
heaven upon its surface, is the sea of nations.'
III. The first great beast is Nebuchadrezzar and
the Babylonian Empire.'' There is nothing strange in
the fact that there should be a certain transfusion or
overlapping of the symbols, the object not being literary
congruity, but the creation of a general impression.
He is represented as a lion, because lions were pre-
valent in Babylonia, and were specially prominent in
Babylonian decorations. His eagle-wings s3'mbolise
rapacity and swiftness.'* But, according to the narra-
tive already given, a change had come over the spirit
of Nebuchadrezzar in his latter days. That subduing
and softening by the influence of a Divine power is
represented by the plucking off of the lion's eagle-
wings, and its fall to earth. But it was not left to lie
there in impotent degradation. It is lifted up from the
' Isa. xxvii. I, li. 9 ; Ezek. xxix. 3, xxxii. 2.
^ Comp. Job xxxviii. 16, 17 ; Isa. viii. 7, xvii. 12.
' Comp. Dan. ii. 38. Jeremiah had likened Nebuchadrezzar both to
the lion (iv. 7, xlix. 19, etc.) and to the eagle (xlviii. 40, xlix. 22).
Ezekiel had compared the king (xvii. 3), and Habakkuk his armies
(i. 8), as also Jeremiah (iv. 13; Lam. iv. 19), to the eagle (Pusey,
p. 690). See too Layard, Nin. and Bab., ii. 460. For other beast-
symbols see Isa. xxvii. i, li. 9 ; Ezek. xxix. 3 ; Psalm Ixxiv. 13.
* Comp. Jer. iv. 7, 13, xlix. 16; Ezek. xvii. 3, 12; Hab. i. 8; Lam.
iv. 19.
VISION OF THE FOUR IVILD BEASTS 239
earth, and humanised, and made to stand on its feet as
a man, and a man's heart is given to it.^
IV. The bear, which places itself upon one side, is
the Median Empire, smaller than the Chaldean, as the
bear is smaller and less formidable than the lion. The
crouching on one side is obscure. It is explained by
some as implying that it was lower in exaltation than
the Babylonian Empire ; by others that " it gravitated,
as regards its power, only towards the countries west
of the Tigris and Euphrates."" The meaning of the
'* three ribs in its mouth " is also uncertain. Some
regard the number three as a vague round number ;
others refer it to the three countries over which the
Median dominion extended — Babylonia, Assyria, and
Syria ; others, less probably, to the three chief cities.
The command, " Arise, devour much flesh," refers to
the prophecies of Median conquest,'' and perhaps to
uncertain historical reminiscences which confused
" Darius the Mede " with Darius the son of Hystaspes.
Those who explain this monster as an emblem, not
of the Median but of the Medo-Persian Empire,
neglect the plain indications of the Book itself, for the
author regards the Median and Persian Empires as
distinct.*
V. The leopard or panther represents the Persian
kingdom.'' It has four wings on its back, to indicate
' The use of enosh — not eesh — indicates chastening and weakness.
- Ewald.
' Isa. xiii. 17; Jer. li. 11, 28. Aristotle, H. N., viii. 5, calls the bear
ird/x^ayos, "all-devouring." A bear appears as a dream-symbol in an
Assyrian book of auguries (Lenormant, Magie, 492).
* Dan. V. 28, 31, vi. 8, 12, 15, 28, viii. 20, ix. i, xi. i.
^ The composite beast of Rev. xiii. 2 combines leopard, bear, and
lion.
240 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
how freely and swiftly it soared to the four quarters of
the world. Its four heads indicate four kings. There
were indeed twelve or thirteen kings of Persia between
B.C. 536 and B.C. 333 ; but the author of the Book of
Daniel, who of course had no books of history before
him, only thinks of the four who were most prominent
in popular tradition — namely (as it would seem), Cyrus,
Darius, Artaxerxes, and Xerxes.^ These are the only
four names which the writer knew, because they are
the only ones which occur in Scripture. It is true that
the Darius of Neh. xii. 22 is not the Great Darius, son
of Hystaspes, but Darius Codomannus (b.c. 424-404).
But this fact may most easily have been overlooked in
uncritical and unhistoric times. And " power was given
to it," for it was far stronger than the preceding kingdom
of the Medes.
VI. The fourth monster won its chief aspect of
terribleness from the conquests of Alexander, which
blazed over the East with such irresistible force and
suddenness.^ The great Macedonian, after his massa-
cres at T3Te, struck into the Eastern world the intense
feeling of terror v/hich we still can recognise in the
narrative of Josephus. His rule is therefore symbolised
by a monster diverse from all the beasts before it in
its sudden leap out of obscurity, in the lightning-like
rapidity of its flash from West to East, and in its
instantaneous disintegration into four separate kingdoms.
It is with one only of those four kingdoms of the
Diadochi, the one which so terribly affected the fortunes
of the Holy Land, that the writer is predominantly
' Comp. viii. 4-8.
- Battle of the Granicus, B.C. 334 ; Baltic of Issus, 333 ; Siege of
Tyre, 332; Battle of Arbela, 331 ; Death of Darius, 330. Alexander
died B.C. 323.
B.C.
. 312-
280
. 280-261
. 261-
-246
. 246-
-226
. 226-
223
• 223-
-187
. 187-
-176
VISION OF THE FOUR WILD BEASTS 241
concerned — namely, the empire of the Seleucid kings.
It is in that portion of the kingdom — namely, from the
Euxine to the confines of Arabia— that the ten horns
arise which, we are told, symbolise ten kings. It seems
almost certain that these ten kines are intended for : —
1. Seleucus I. (AVcrt/^;- ) '
2. Antiochus I. {Soter) .
3. Antiochus II. (T/tcos) .
4. Seleiicus II. (^Kallinikos) .
5. Seleucus III. (Keraunos) .
6. Antiochus III. {Megas)
7. Seleucus IV. {Fhilopator) .
Then followed the three kings (actual or potential)
who were plucked up before the little horn : namely —
B.C.
8. Demetrius . 175
9. Heliodorus 176
10. Ptolemy Pliilometor 181-146
Of these three who succumbed to the machinations
of Antiochus Epiphanes, or the little horn," the first,
Demetrius, was the only son of Seleucus Philopator,
and true heir to the crown. His father sent him to
Rome as a hostage, and released his brother Antiochus.
So far from showing gratitude for this generosity,
Antiochus, on the murder of Seleucus IV. (b.c. 175),
usurped the rights of his nephew (Dan. xi. 21).
The second, Hehodorus, seeing that Demetrius the
' This was the interpretation given by the great father Ephraem
Syrus in the first century. Hitzig, Kuenen, and others ccuntfrom
Alexander the Great, and omit Ptolemy Philometor.
^ Dan. xi. 21.
16
242 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
heir was out of the way, poisoned Seleucus Philopator,
and himself usurped the kingdom.^
Ptolemy Philometor was the son of Cleopatra, the
sister of Seleucus Philopator. A large party was in
favour of uniting Egypt and Persia under his rule.
But Antiochus Epiphanes ignored the compact which
had made Coele-Syria and Phoenicia the dower of
Cleopatra, and not only kept Philometor from his
rights, but would have deprived him of Egypt also but
for the strenuous interposition of the Romans and their
ambassador M. Popilius Laenas."
When the three horns had thus fallen before him, the
little horn — Antiochus Epiphanes — sprang into promi-
nence. The mention of his '* eyes " seems to be a
reference to his shrewdness, cunning, and vigilance.^
The " mouth that spoke very great things " * alludes to
the boastful arrogance which led him to assume the
title of Epiphanes, or " the illustrious " — which his
scornful subjects changed into Epimanes, " the mad " —
and to his assumption even of the title Theos, " the
god," on some of his coins/' His look " was bigger
' Appian, Syr., 45 ; Liv., xli. 24. The story of his attempt to rob
the Temple at Jerusalem, rendered so famous by the great picture of
Raphael in the Vatican stimze, is not mentioned by Josephus, but only
in 2 Mace. iii. 24-40. In 4 Mace, it is told, without the miracle, of Apollo-
nius. There can be little doubt that something of the kind happened,
but it was perhaps due to an imposture of the Jewish high priest.
- Porphyry interpreted the three kings who succumbed to the little
horn to be Ptolemy Philometor, Ptolemy Euergetes II., and Artaxias,
King of Armenia. The critics who begin the ten kings with Alexander
the Great count Seleucus IV. (Philopator) as one of the three who
were supplanted by Antiochus. Von Gutschmid counts as one of the
three a younger brother of Demetrius, said to have been murdered by
Antiochus (Muller, Fr. Hist. Crcec, iv. 558).
^ Comp. viii. 23.
•■ Comp. XaXeiJ' fiiyaXa (Rev. xiii. 5); Hom., Ot/., xvi. 243.
* Comp. xi. 36.
riSION OF THE FOUR WILD BEASTS 243
than his fellows," for he inspired the kings of Egypt
and other countries with terror. "He made war against
the saints," with the aid of "Jason and Menelaus, those
ungodly wretches," and " prevailed against them." He
** wore out the saints of the Most High," for he took
Jerusalem by storm, plundered it, slew eighty thousand
men, women, and children, took forty thousand prisoners,
and sold as many into slavery (b.c. 170).^ "As he
entered the sanctuary to plunder it, under the guidance
of the apostate high priest Menelaus, he uttered words
of blasphemy, and he carried off all the gold and silver
he could find, including the golden table, altar of
incense, candlesticks, and vessels, and even rifled the
subterraneous vaults, so that he seized no less than
eighteen hundred talents of gold." '^ He then sacrificed
swine upon the altar, and sprinkled the whole Temple
with the broth.
Further than all this, ''he thought to change times and
laws" ; and they were "given into his hand until a time,
and two times, and a half." For he made a determined
attempt to put down the Jewish feasts, the Sabbath,
circumcision, and all the most distinctive Jewish ordi-
nances.^ In B.C. 167, two years after his cruel devasta-
tion of the city, he sent Apollonius, his chief collector
of tribute, against Jerusalem, with an ai"my of twent}^-
two thousand men. On the first Sabbath after his
' Jos., B.J., I. i. 2, VI. X. 1. In Antt., XII. v. 3, Josephus says he
took Jerusalem by stratagem.
" Jahn, Hcbr. Coumioinvealth, § xciv. ; Ewald, Hist, of Isr., v,
293-300.
^ 2 Mace. iv. 9-15 : '• The priests had no courage to serve any
more at the altar, but despising the Temple, and neglecting the
sacrifices, hastened to be partakers of the unlawftd allowance in the
place of exercise, after the game of Discus . . . not setting by the honoura
of their fathers, but liking the glory of the Grecians best of all,"
244 TH^ BOOK OF DANIEL
arrival, Apollonius sent his soldiers to massacre all the
men whom they met in the streets, and to seize the
women and children as slaves. He occupied the castle
on Mount Zion, and prevented the Jews from attending
the public ordinances of their sanctuar}'. Hence in
June B.C. 167 the daily sacrifice ceased, and the Jews
fled for their lives from the Holy City. Antiochus
then published an edict forbidding all his subjects in
Syria and elsewhere — even the Zoroastrians in Armenia
and Persia — to worship any gods, or acknowledge any
religion but his.' The Jewish sacred books were burnt,
and not only the Samaritans but many Jews apostatised,
while others hid themselves in mountains and deserts.'''
He sent an old philosopher named Athenaeus to
instruct the Jews in the Greek religion, and to en-
force its observance. He dedicated the Temple to Zeus
Olympios, and built on the altar of Jehovah a smaller
altar for sacrifice to Zeus, to whom he must also have
erected a statue. This heathen altar was set up on
Kisleu (December) 15, and the heathen sacrifice began
on Kisleu 25. All observance of the Jewish Law was
now treated as a capital crime. The Jews were forced
to sacrifice in heathen groves at heathen altars, and to
walk, crowned with ivy, in Bacchic processions. Two
women who had braved the despot's wrath by cir-
cumcising their children were flung from the Temple
battlements into the vale below.^
The triumph of this blasphemous and despotic
' I Mace. i. 29-40; 2 Mace. v. 24-26; Jos,, Antt., XII. v. 4. Comp.
Dan. xi. 30, 31. See Sehiirer, i. 155 ff.
"^ Jerome, Coinm. in Dan., viii., ix. ; Tac, His(., v. 8; I Mace. i.
41-53; 2 Mace. V. 27, vi. 2; Jos., Antt., XII. v. 4.
^ I Mace. ii. 41-64, iv. 54; 2 Mace. vi. 1-9, x, 5; Jos., Antt.,
XII. V. 4 ; Dan. xi. 31.
VISION OF THE FOUR WILD BEASTS 245
savagery was arrested, first by the irresistible force of
determined martyrdom which preferred death to un-
faithfulness, and next by the armed resistance evoked
by the heroism of Mattathias, the priest at Modin.
When Apelles visited the town, and ordered the Jews
to sacrifice, Mattathias struck down with his own hand
a Jew who was preparing to obey. Then, aided by his
strong heroic sons, he attacked Apelles, slew him and
his soldiers, tore down the idolatrous altar, and with
his sons and adherents fled into the wilderness, where
they were joined by many of the Jews.
The news of this revolt brought Antiochus to Pales-
tine in B.C. 166, and among his other atrocities he
ordered the execution by torture of the venerable scribe
Eleazar, and of the pious mother with her seven sons.
In spite of all his efforts the party of the Chasidtm
grew in numbers and in strength. When Mattathias
died, Judas the Maccabee became their leader, and his
brother Simon their counsellor.^ While Antiochus was
celebrating his mad and licentious festival at Daphne,
Judas inflicted a severe defeat on Apollonius, and won
other battles, which made Antiochus vow in an access
of fury that he would exterminate the nation (Dan. xi.
44). But he found himself bankrupt, and the Persians
and Armenians were revolting from him in disgust.
He therefore sent Lysias as his general to Judaea, and
Lysias assembled an immense army of forty thousand
foot and seven thousand horse, to whom Judas could
only oppose six thousand men.^ L3'sias pitched his
camp at Beth-shur, south of Jerusalem. There Judas
' Maccabee perhaps means " the Hammerer " (comp. the names
Charles Martel and Malleus hcereticoruni). Simeon was called
Tadshi, " he increases " (? Gk., Qacrais).
" The numbers vary in the records.
246 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
attacked him with irresistible valour and confidence,
slew five thousand of his soldiers, and drove the rest to
flight.
Lysias retired to Antioch, intending to renew the
invasion next year. Thereupon Judas and his army
recaptured Jerusalem, and restored and cleansed and
reconsecrated the dilapidated and desecrated sanctuary.
He made a new shewbread-table, incense-altar, and
candlestick of gold in place of those which Antiochus
had carried off, and new vessels of gold, and a new
veil before the Holiest Place. All this was completed
on Kisleu 25, B.C. 165, about the time of the winter
solstice, " on the same day of the year on which, three
years before, it had been profaned by Antiochus, and
just three years and a half — * a time, two times, and
half a time ' — after the city and Temple had been
desolated by Apollonius." ^ They began the day by
renewing the sacrifices, kindling the altar and the
candlestick by pure fire struck by flints. The whole
law of the Temple service continued thenceforward
without interruption till the destruction of the Temple
by the Romans. It was a feast in commemoration of
this dedication — called the Encaenia and " the Lights "
— which Christ honoured by His presence at Jerusalem.^
The neighbouring nations, when they heard of this
revolt of the Jews, and its splendid success, proposed
to join with Antiochus for their extermination. But
meanwhile the king, having been shamefully repulsed
in his sacrilegious attack on the Temple of Artemis at
Elymais, retired in deep chagrin to Ecbatana, in Media.
It was there that he heard of the Jewish successes and
' Prideaux, Connection, ii. 212. Comp. Rev. xii. 14, xi. 2, 3.
^ John X. 22.
VISION OF THE FOUR WILD BEASTS 247
set out to chastise the rebels. On his way he heard
of the recovery of Jerusalem, the destruction of his
heathen altars, and the purification of the Temple.
The news flung him into one of those paroxysms of
fury to which he was liable, and, breathing out threaten-
ings and slaughter, he declared that he would turn
Jerusalem into one vast cemetery for the whole Jewish
race. Suddenly smitten with a violent internal malady,
he would not stay his course, but still urged his
charioteer to the utmost speed.* In consequence of
this the chariot was overturned, and he was flung
violently to the ground, receiving severe injuries. He
was placed in a litter, but, unable to bear the agonies
caused by its motion, he stopped at Tabae, in the
mountains of Paraetacene, on the borders of Persia and
Babylonia, where he died, B.C. 164, in very evil case,
half mad with the furies of a remorseful conscience.^
The Jewish historians say that, before his death, he
repented, acknowledged the crimes he had committed
against the Jews, and vowed that he would repair them
if he survived. The stories of his death resemble
those of the deaths of Herod, of Galerius, of Philip II.,
and of other bitter persecutors of the saints of God.
Judas the Maccabee, who had overthrown his power in
Palestine, died at Eleasa in B.C. 161, after a series of
brilliant victories.
Such were the fortunes of the king whom the writer
shadows forth under the emblem of the little horn with
' On the death of Antiochus see i Mace. vi. 8 ; 2 Mace. ix. ;
Polybius, xxxi. il ; Jos., Aittt., XII. ix. i, 2.
^ Polybius, De Vi'ri. et Vit., Exc. Vales, p. 144; O. Ciirtius, v. 13;
Strabo, xi. 522 ; Appian, Syriaca, xlvi. 80 ; I Mace. vi. ; 2 Mace. ix. ;
Jos., An//., XII. ix. I ; Prideaux, ii. 217 ; Jahn, Hebr. Conunonivealth
§ xcvi.
MS the book of DANIEL
human eyes and a mouth which spake blasphemies,
whose power was to be made transitory, and to be
annihilated and destroyed unto the end.^ And when
this wild beast was slain, and its body given to the
burning fire, the rest of the beasts were indeed to be
deprived of their splendid dominions, but a respite of
life is given them, and they are suffered to endure for
a time and a period."
But the eternal life, and the imperishable dominion,
which were denied to them, are given to another in the
epiphany of the Ancient of Days. The vision of the
seer is one of a great scene of judgment. Thrones are
set for the heavenly assessors, and the Almighty ap-
pears in snow-white raiment, and on His chariot-throne
'of burning flame which flashes round Him like a vast
photosphere.^ The books of everlasting record are
opened before the glittering faces of the myriads of
saints who accompany Him, and the fiery doom is
passed on the monstrous world-powers who would fain
usurp His authorit3^*
But who is the " one even as a son of man," who
" comes with the clouds of heaven," and who is brought
before the Ancient of Days,"'"' to whom is given the
imperishable dominion ? That he is not an angel
' Dan. vii. 26.
- Dan. vii. 12. This is only explicable at all — and then not clearly
— on the supposition that the fourth beast represents Alexander and
the Diadochi. Sec even Pusey, p. 78.
* Ezek. i. 26 ; Psalm 1. 3. Comp. the adaptation of this vision in
Enoch xlvi. 1-3.
■' Isa. 1. II, Ix. 10-12, Ixvi. 24, Joel iii. i, 2. See Rev. i. 13. In
the Gospels it is not " a son of man," but generally 6 ul6s toO dvOpdjwov.
Comp. Matt. xvi. 13, xxiv. 30; John xii. 34; Acts vii. 56; Justin,
Dial. c. Trypli., 31.
^ Comp. Mark xiv. 62 ; Rev. i. 7 ; Horn., //., v. 867, 6/xoD vfrp^ecmv.
VISION OF THE FOUR IVILD BEASTS 249
appears from the fact that he seems to be separate
from all the ten thousand times ten thousand who
stand around the cherubic chariot. He is not a man,
but something more. In this respect he resembles the
angels described in Dan. viii. 15, x. 16-18. He has
"the appearance of a man," and is " like the similitude
of the sons of men." -^
We should naturally answer, in accordance with the
multitude of ancient and modern commentators both
Jewish and Christian, that the Messiah is intended ;' and,
indeed, our Lord alludes to the prophecy in Matt. xxvi.
64. That the vision is meant to indicate the establish-
ment of the Messianic theocracy cannot be doubted.
But if we follow the interpretation given by the angel
himself in answer to Daniel's entreaty, the personality
of the Messiah seems to be at least somewhat subordi-
nate or indistinct. For the interpretation, without men-
tioning any person, seems to point only to the saints
of Israel who are- to inherit and maintain that Divine
kingdom which has been already thrice asserted and
prophesied. It is the " holy ones " {Qaddishiii), ** the
holy ones of the Most High " {Qaddlshi Eliotnii), upon
whom the never-ending sovereignt}^ is conferred ; ^ and
who these are cannot be misunderstood, for they are
the very same as those against whom the little horn
has been engaged in war."* The Messianic kingdom is
' Comp. Ezek. i. 26.
- It is so understood by the Book of Enoch ; the Talmud (San/icdriit,
f. 98, i) ; the early father Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tiyph., 31, etc. Some
of the Jewish commentators {e.g., Abn Ezra) understood it of the
people of God, and so Hofmann, Hitzig, Meinhold, etc. See Behrmann,
Dan., p. 48.
' Dan. iv. 3, 34, vi. 26. Sec Schtirer, ii. 247; Wellhausen, Die
Pilaris, u. Sadd., 24 ff.
* Dan. vii. 16, 22, 23, 27.
2SO THE BOOK OF DANIEL
here predominantly represented as the spiritual supre-
macy of the chosen people. Neither here, nor in ii. 44,
nor in xii. 3, does the writer separately indicate any
Davidic king, or priest upon his throne, as had been
already done by so many previous prophets.^ This
vision does not seem to have brought into prominence
the rule of any Divinely Incarnate Christ over the king-
dom of the Highest. In this respect the interpretation
of the " one even as a son of man " comes upon us as
a surprise, and seems to indicate that the true interpre-
tation of that element of the vision is that the kingdom
of the saints is there personified ; so that as wild beasts
were appropriate emblems of the world-powers, the
reasonableness and sanctity of the saintly theocracy
are indicated by a human form, which has its origin in
the clouds of heaven, not in the miry and troubled sea.
This is the view of the Christian father Ephraem Syrus,
as well as of the Jewish exegete Abn Ezra ; and it is
supported by the fact that in other apocryphal books of
the later epoch, as in the Assumption of Moses and the
Book of Jubilees, the Messianic hope is concentrated in
the conception that the holy nation is to have the
dominance over the Gentiles. At any rate, it seems
that, if truth is to guide us rather than theological
prepossession, we must take the significance of the
writer, not from the emblems of the vision, but from
the divinely imparted interpretation of it ; and there
the figure of " one as a son of man " is persistently
(vv. 18, 22, 27) explained to stand, not for the Christ
Himself, but for " the holy ones of the Most High," ^
' Zech. ix. 9.
• See Schiirer, ii. 138-187, " The Messianic Hope": he refers to EccUis.
xxxii. 18, 19, xxxiii. l-i i, xl. 13, 1. 24 ; Judith xvi. 12 ; 2 Mace. ii. 18 ;
Baruch ii. 27-35; Tobit xiii, ii-i8; Wisdom iii. 8, v. I, etc. The
riSIUN OF THE FOUR JVILD BEASTS 251
whose dominion Christ's coming should inaugurate and
secure.
The chapter closes with the words : " Here is the end
of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts much
troubled me, and my brightness was changed in me :
but I kept the matter in my heart."
Messianic King appears more distinctly in Orac. Stbyll., iii.; in parts
of the Book of Enoch (of which, however, xlv.-lvii. are of unknown
date) ; and the Psalms of Solomon. In Philo we seem to have
traces of the King as well as of the kingdom. See Drummond, The
Jewish Messiah, pp. 1968".; Stanton, The Jewish and Christian Messiah,
pp. 1 09- 1 18.
CHAPTER II
THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT
THIS vision is dated as having occurred in the
third year of Belshazzar ; but it is not easy to see
the significance of the date, since it is almost exclusively
occupied with the establishment of the Greek Empire,
its dissolution into the kingdoms of the Diadochi, and
the godless despotism of King Antiochus Epiphanes.
The seer imagines himself to be in the palace of
Shushan: "As I beheld I was in the castle of Shushan."^
It has been supposed by some that Daniel was really
there upon some business connected with the kingdom
of Babylon. But this view creates a needless difficulty.
Shushan, which the Greeks called Susa, and the Persians
Shush (now Shushter), " the city of the lily," was " the
palace " or fortress (birah ^) of the Achaemcnid kings
of Persia, and it is most unlikely that a chief officer
of the kingdom of Babylon should have been there in
the third year of the imaginary King Belshazzar, just
when C3TUS was on the eve of capturing Babylon with-
out a blow. If Belshazzar is some dim reflection of
the son of Nabunaid (though he never reigned), Shushan
' Ezra vi. 2; Neh. i. i ; Herod., v. 49 ; Polyb., v. 48. A supposed
tomb of Daniel has long been revered at Shushan.
■ Pers., baru; Skr., bura; Assyr., biylu; Gk., ^dpis. Comp. ^Esch.,
Pert., 554; Herod., ii. 96.
252
THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT 253
was not then subject to the King of Bab3donia. But
the ideal presence of the prophet there, in vision, is
analogous to the presence of the exile Ezekiel in Jeru-
salem (Ezck. xl. i) ; and these transferences of the
prophets to the scenes of their operation were some-
times even regarded as bodily, as in the legend of
Habakkuk taken to the lions' den to support Daniel.
Shushan is described as being in the province of
Elam or Elymais, which may be here used as a general
designation of the district in which Susiana was in-
cluded. The prophet imagines himself as standing by
the river-basin (oobdl^) of the Ulai, which shows that
we must take the words " in the castle of Shushan" in
an ideal sense ; for, as Ewald says, " it is only in a
dream that images and places are changed so rapidly,"
The Ulai is the river called by the Greeks the Eulceus,
now the Karun."
Shushan is said by Pliny and Arrian to have been
on the river Eulaeus, and by Herodotus to have been
on the banks of
"Choaspes, amber stream,
Tlie drink of none but kings."
It seems now to have been proved that the Ulai was
merely a branch of the Choaspes or Kerkhah.'^
' Theodot., ov^aX; Ewald, Stronigebiet — a place where several
rivers meet. The Jews prayed on river-banks (Acts xvi. 13), and
Ezekiel had seen his vision on the Chebar (Ezek. i. i, iii. 15, etc.);
but this Ulai is here mentioned because the palace stood on its bank.
Both the LXX. and Theodotion omit the word Ulai.
^ "Susianam ab Elj'maide disterminat aranis Eulseus" (Plin., //. N.,
vi. 27).
^ See Loftus, Chaldcea, p, 346, who visited Shush in 1854;
Herzog, R. E., s.v. "Susa." A tile was found bj- Layard at Kuyunjik
representing a large city between two rivers. It probably represents
Susa. Loftus says that the city stood between the Choaspes and
the Kopratas (now the Dizful).
254 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Lifting up his eyes, Daniel sees a ram standing east-
ward of the river-basin. It has two lofty horns, the
loftier of the two being the later in origin. It butts
westward, northward, and southward, and does great
things.^ But in the midst of its successes a he-goat,
with a conspicuous horn between its eyes,^ comes from
the West so swiftly over the face of all the earth
that it scarcely seems even to touch the ground,^ and
runs upon the ram in the fur}- of his strength,^ con-
quering and trampling upon him, and smashing in
pieces his two horns. But his impetuosity was short-
lived, for the great horn was speedily broken, and
four others " rose in its place towards the four winds
of heaven. Out of these four horns shot up a puny
horn," which grew exceedingly great towards the South,
and towards the East, and towards " the Glory " — i.e.,
towards the Holy Land." It became great even to
the host of heaven, and cast down some of the host
and of the stars to the ground, and trampled on them.^
' The Latin word for " to butt " is arictare, from aries, "a ram.'' It
butts in three directions (comp. Dan. vii. 5). Its conquests in the East
were apart from the writer's purpose. CrcESus called the Persians
v^pi(TTal, and ^schylus vTr^pKOfj.iroi dyav, Pets., 795 (Stuart). For
horns as the symbol of strength see Amos vi. 13 ; Psalm Ixxv. 5.
" Unicorns are often represented on Assyrio-Babylonian sculptures.
^ I Mace. i. 1-3 ; Isa. xli. 2 ; Hosea xiii. 7, 8; Hab. i. 6.
■* Fury (chi'ina/i), " heat,'" " violence " — also of deadly venom (Deut.
xxxii. 24).
* A.V., "four no/able horns ''; but the word chazoth means literally
"a sight of four" — i.e., "four other horns" (comp. ver. 8). Gratz
reads ac/ii'fotft ; LXX., erepa ricraapa (comp. xi. 4).
" Lit. " out of littleness."
' Hatstsebi. Comp. xi. 45 ; Ezek. xx. 6; Jer. iii. 19 Zech. vii. 14
Psalm cvi. 24. The Rabbis make the word mean "the gazelle" for
fanciful reasons (^TaaiiUfi, 69,(7).
• The physical image implies the war against the spiritual host of
THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT 255
He even behaved proudly against the prince of the host,
took away from him^ "the daily" (sacrifice), polluted
the dismantled sanctuary with sacrilegious arms,^ and
cast the truth to the ground and prospered. Then
" one holy one called to another and asked, For
how long is the vision of the daily [sacrifice], and the
horrible sacrilege, that thus both the sanctuary and
host are surrendered to be trampled underfoot ? " ^
And the answer is, " Until two thousand three hundred
^crcbh-boqcr, ' evening-morning ' ; then will the sanctuary
be justified."
Daniel sought to understand the vision, and imme-
diately there stood before him one in the semblance
of a man, and he hears the distant voice of some one ^
standing between the Ulai — t.e., between its two banks,''
or perhaps between its two branches, the Eulaeus and
the Choaspes — who called aloud to "Gabriel." The
heaven, the holy people with their leaders. See I Mace. i. 24-30 ;
2 Mace, ix, 10. The Tsebaoth mean primarily the stars and angels,
but next the Israelites (Exod. vii. 4).
' So in the Hebrew margin {Q^ri), followed by Theodoret and
Ewald ; but in the text {Kethlbh) it is, "by him the daily was
abolished " ; and with this reading the Peshito and Vulgate agree.
Hatlaniid, " the daily " sacrifice ; LXX., ez'5eXex'0'i"os ; Numb, xxviii. 3 ;
I Mace. i. 39, 45, iii. 45.
- The Hebrew is here corrupt. The R.V. renders it, "And the
host was given over to it, together with the continual burnt offering
through transgression ; and it cast down truth to the ground, and it
did its pleasure and prospered."
* Dan. viii. 13. I follow Ewald in this difficult verse, and with
him Von Lengerke and Hitzig substantially agree ; but the text is
again corrupt, as appears also in the LXX. It would be useless here
to enter into minute philological criticism. "How long ?"" (comp.
Isa. vi. 11).
■* LXX,, (peXfiufi ; nescio quis (Vulg., viri).
* Comp. for the expression xii. 6.
256 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
archangel Gabriel is here first mentioned in Scripture.^
"Gabriel," cried the voice, "explain to him what he
has seen." .So Gabriel came and stood beside him ;
but he was terrified, and fell on his face. " Observe,
thou son of man," -' said the angel to him ; " for unto
the time of the end is the vision." But since Daniel
still lay prostrate on his face, and sank into a swoon,
the angel touched him, and raised him up, and said
that the great wrath was only for a fixed time, and he
would tell him what would happen at the end of it.
The two-horned ram, he said, the Baol-keranaim,
or " lord of two horns," represents the King of Media
and Persia ; the shaggy goat is the Empire of Greece ;
and the great horn is its first king — Alexander the
Great.'
The four horns rising out of the broken great horn
are four inferior kingdoms. In one of these, sacrilege
would culminate in the person of a king of bold face,*
and skilled in cunning, who would become powerful,
though not by his own strength.' He would prosper
' We find no names in Gen. xxxii. 30; Judg. xiii. 18. For the
presence of angels at the vision comp. Zech. i. 9, 13, etc. Gabriel
means "man of God." In Tobit iii. 17 Raphael is mentioned; in
2 Esdras v. 20, Uriel. This is the first mention of any angel's name.
Michael is the highest archangel (Weber, System., 162 ff.), and in
Jewish angelology Gabriel is identified with the Holy Spirit {Jittach
Haqqoclesli). As such he appears in the Quran, ii. 91 (Behrmann).
-' Ben-Adam (Ezek. ii. i).
^ Comp. Isa> xiv. 9 : " All the great goats of the earth." A ram
is a natural symbol for a chieftain. — Horn., //., xiii. 491-493; Cic,
De Div., i. 22 ; Plut., Sulla, c. 27 ; Jer. 1. 8 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 17 ; Zech. x. 3,
etc. See Vaux, Persia, p. 72.
* " Strength of face " (LXX., di'ttiSv/j Trpoawiroi ; Deut. xxviii. 50, etc.).
" Understanding dark sentences" (Judg. xiv. 12 ; Ezek. xvii. 2 : comp.
V. 12).
■' The meaning is uncertain. It may mean (i) that he is only
strong by God's permission ; or (2) only by cunning, not by strength.
THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT 257
and destroy mighty men and the people of the holy
ones/ and deceit would succeed by his double-dealing.
He would contend against the Prince of princes,^ and
yet without a hand would he be broken in pieces.
Such is the vision and its interpretation ; and
though there is here and there a difficulty in the
details and translation, and though there is a neces-
sary crudeness in the emblematic imagery, the general
significance of the whole is perfectly clear.
The scene of the vision is ideally placed in Shushan,
because the Jews regarded it as the royal capital of
the Persian dominion, and the dream begins with the
overthrow of the Medo-Persian Empire.^ The ram
is a natural symbol of power and strength, as in
Isa. Ix. 7. The two horns represent the two divisions
of the empire, of which the later — the Persian — is
the loftier and the stronger. It is regarded as being
already the lord of the East, but it extends its con-
quests by butting westward over the Tigris into Europe,
and southwards to Egypt and Africa, and northwards
towards Scythia, with magnificent success.
The he-goat is Greece.'' Its one great horn re-
presents "the great Emathian conqueror."* So swift
' Comp. 2 Mace. iv. 9-15 : "The priests had no courage to serve
any more at the altar, but despising the Temple, and neglecting the
sacrifices, hastened to be partakers of the unlawful allowance in the
place of exercise . . . not setting by the honours of their fathers, but
liking the glory of the Grecians best of all."
- Not merely the angelic prince of the host (Josh. v. I4), but God —
" Lord of lords."
' Comp. Esther i. 2. Though the vision took place under Babylon,
the seer is strangely unconcerned with the present, or with the fate
of the Babylonian Empire.
^ It is said to be the national emblem of Macedonia.
' He is called "the King of Javan " — i.e., of the lonians.
258 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
was the career of Alexander's conquests, that the
goat seems to speed along without so much as touch-
ing the ground/ With irresistible fury, in the great
battles of the Granicus (b.c. 334), Issus (b.c. 333), and
Arbela (b.c. 331), he stamps to pieces the power of
Persia and of its king, Darius Codomannus." In this
short space of time Alexander conquers Syria, Phoenicia,
Cyprus, Tj're, Gaza, Eg3'pt, Babylonia, Persia, Media,
Hyrcania, Aria, and Arachosia. In b.c. 330 Darius
was murdered by Bessus, and Alexander became lord
of his kingdom. In b.c. 329 the Greek King con-
quered Bactria, crossed the Oxus and Jaxartes, and
defeated the Scythians. In b.c. 328 he conquered
Sogdiana. In b.c. 327 and 326 he crossed the Indus,
Hydaspes, and Akesines, subdued Northern and
Western India, and — compelled by the discontent of his
troops to pause in his career of victory — sailed down
the Hydaspes and Indus to the Ocean. He then
returned by land through Gedrosia, Karmania, Persia,
and Susiana to Babylon.
There the great horn is suddenl}^ broken without
hand.^ Alexander in b.c. 323, after a reign of twelve
years and eight months, died as a fool dieth, of a fever
brought on by fatigue, exposure, drunkenness, and
debauchery. He was only thirty-two 3^ears old.
The dismemberment of his empire immediately
followed. In b.c. 322 its vast extent was divided
' Isa. V. 26-29. Comp. I Mace. i. 3.
'■' The fury of the he-goat represents the vengeance cherished by
the Greeks against Persia since the old days of Maratlion, Ther-
mopylae, Salamis, Platsea, and Mycale. Persia had invaded Greece
under Mardonius (b.c. 492), under Datis and Artapherncs (b.c 490),
and under Xerxes (b.c. 480).
^ I Mace. vi. 1-16; 2 Mace. ix. 9 ; Job vii. 6 ; Prov. xxvi. 20.
THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT 259
among his principal generals. Twenty-two years of
war ensued; and in b.c. 301, after the defeat of Anti-
gonus and- his son Demetrius at the Battle of Ipsus,
four horns are visible in the place of one. The battle
was won by the confederacy of Cassander, Lysimachus,
Ptolemy, and Seleucus, and they founded four king-
doms. Cassander ruled in Greece and Macedonia ;
Lysimachus in Asia Minor ; Ptolemy in Egypt, Coele-
Syria, and Palestine ; Seleucus in Upper Asia.
With one only of the four kingdoms, and with one
only of its kings, is the vision further concerned — with
the kingdom of the Seleucidae, and with the eighth king
of the dynasty, Antiochus Epiphanes. In this chapter,
however, a brief sketch only of him is furnished.
Many details of the minutest kind are subsequently
added.
He is called " a puny horn," because, in his youth,
no one could have anticipated his future greatness. He
was only a younger son of Antiochus III. (the Great).
When Antiochus III. was defeated in the Battle of
Magnesia under Mount Sipylus (b.c. 190), his loss was
terrible. Fifty thousand foot and four thousand horse
were slain on the battlefield, and fourteen hundred
were taken prisoners. He was forced to make peace
with the Romans, and to give them hostages, one of
whom was Antiochus the Younger, brother of Seleucus,
who was heir to the throne. Antiochus for thirteen
years languished miserably as a hostage at Rome. His
father, Antiochus the Great, was either slain in b.c. 187
by the people of Elymais, after his sacrilegious plunder-
ing of the Temple of Jupiter-Belus ; ' or murdered by
' So Diodorus Siculus (Exc. Vales., p. 293); Justin, xxxii. 2;
Jcr. in Dan., xi. ; Strabo, xvi. 744.
26o THE BOOK OF DANIEL
some of his own attendants whom he had beaten during
a fit of drunkenness.* Seleucus Philopator succeeded
him, and after having reigned for thirteen years, wished
to see his brother Antiochus again. He therefore sent
his son Demetrius in exchange for him, perhaps desiring
that the boy, who was then twelve years old, should
enjoy the advantage of a Roman education, or thinking
that Antiochus .would be of more use to him in his
designs against Ptolemy Philometor, the child-king of
Egypt. When Demetrius was on his way to Rome,
and Antiochus had not yet reached Antioch, Heliodorus
the treasurer seized the opportunity to poison Seleucus
and usurp the crown.
The chances, therefore, of Antiochus seemed very
forlorn. But he was a man of abilit}', though with a
taint of folly and madness in his veins. By allying him-
self with Eumenes, King of Pergamum, as we shall see
hereafter, he suppressed Heliodorus, secured the king-
dom, and " becoming very great," though only by fraud,
cruelty, and stratagem, assumed the title of Epiphanes
" the Illustrious." He extended his power " towards
the South " by intriguing and warring against Egypt
and his young nephew, Ptolemy Philometor ; - and
" towards the Sunrising " by his successes in the direc-
tion of Media and Persia ; ^ and towards " the Glory "
or "Ornament" {hatstsebi) — i.e., the Holy Land.* In-
flated with insolence, he now set himself against the
stars, the host of heaven — i.e., against the chosen
people of God and their leaders. He cast down and
' Aurcl. Vict., De Virr. lUustr., c. liv.
- He conquered Egypt b.c. 170 (i Mace. i. 17-20).
^ See I Mace. iii. 29-37.
* Comp. Ezek. xx. 6, " wliicli is the glory of all lands"; P^alm 1. 2 ;
Lam. ii. 15.
THE RAM AND THE I IE-GO AT 261
trampled on them,^ and defied the Prince of the host ;
for he
" Not c'eu against the Holy One of licavcn
Refrained his tongue blasphemous."
Mis chief enormity was the abohtion of " the daily "
(tanud) — i.e., the sacrifice daily offered in the Temple ;
and the desecration of the sanctuary itself by violence
and sacrilege, which will be more fully set forth in the
next chapters. He also seized and destroyed the sacred
books of the Jews. As he forbade the reading of the
Law — of which the dail y lesson was called the Parashah
— there began from this time the custom of selecting
a lesson from the Prophets, which was called the
Haphtamh.'-
It was natural to make one of the holy ones, who
are supposed to witness this horrible iniquity,^ inquire
how long it was to be permitted. The enigmatic
answer is, " Until an evening-morning two thousand
three hundred."
In the further explanation given to Daniel by Gabriel
a few more touches are added.
Antiochus Epiphanes is described as a king " bold
of visage, and skilled in enigmas." His boldness is
sufficientl}^ illustrated by his many campaigns and
battles, and his braggart insolence has been already
' I Mace. i. 24-30. Dr. Pusey endeavours, without even the
smallest success, to show that many things said of Antiochus in this
book do not apply to him. The argument is based on the fact that
the characteristics of Antiochus — who was a man of versatile impulses
— are somewhat differently described by different authors ; but here
we have the aspect he presented to a few who regarded him as the
deadliest of tyrants and persecutors.
* See Hamburger, ii. 334 {s.v. "Haftara").
^ Comp. 6pyy) fieydXr] (i Mace. i. 64; Isa. x. 5, 25, xxvi. 20; Jer.
1. 5 Rom. ii. 5, etc.).
262 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
alluded to in vii. 8. His skill in enigmas is illustrated
by his dark and tortuous diplomacy, which was ex-
hibited in all his proceedings/ and especially in the
whole of his dealings with Egypt, in which country he
desired to usurp the throne from his young nephew
Ptolemy Philometor. The statement that " he will
have mighty strength, but not by his own sti-ength,"
may either mean that his transient prosperity was
due only to the permission of God, or that his successes
were won rather by cunning than by prowess. After
an allusion to his cruel persecution of the holy people,
Gabriel adds that " without a hand shall he be broken
in pieces " ; in other words, his retribution and destruc-
tion shall be due to no human intervention, but will
come from God Himself^
Daniel is bidden to hide the vision for many days —
a sentence which is due to the literary plan of the
Book ; and he is assured that the vision concerning
the " evening-morning " was true. He adds that the
vision exhausted and almost annihilated him ; but,
afterwards, he arose and did the king's business.
He was silent about the vision, for neither he nor any
one else understood it.^ Of course, had the real date
of the chapter been in the reign of Belshazzar, it was
wholly impossible that either the seer or any one
' Comp. xi. 21.
- Comp. ii. 34, xi. 45. Antiochus died of a long and terrible illness
in Persia. Polybius (xxxi. ii) describes his sickness by the word
Sai/xoj'Tja'as. Arrian {Syn'aca, 66) says (f>6ivu)v iT€KevT7)ae. In i Mace,
vi. 8-i6 he dies confessing his sins against the Jews, but there is
another story in 2 Mace. ix. 4-28.
^ Ver. 27, "I was gone" (or, "came to an end") "whole days."
With this ^Kffracris comp. ii, i, vii. 28; Exod. xxxiii. 20; Isa. vi. 5;
Luke ix. 32; Acts ix. 4, etc. Comp. xii. 8; Jer. xxxii. 14, and
(contra) Rev. xxii. lO,
THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT 263
else should have been able to attach any significance
to it.^
Emphasis is evidently attached to the " two thousand
three hundred evening-morning" during which the deso-
lation of the sanctuary is to continue.
Whdt does the phrase " evening-morning " i^crebh-
boqcr) mean ?
In ver. 26 it is called " the vision concerning the
evening and the morning."
Does " evening-morning " mean a whole day, like the
Greek vv'xj9t]fi€pov, or ha// a day ? The expression is
doubly perplexing. If the writer meant "days," why
does he not say " days" as in xii. 1 1, 12 ? ^ And why,
in any case, does he here use the solecism ^erebh-boqer
{Abendmorgert), and not, as in ver. 26, " evening and
morning " ? Does the expression mean two thousand
three hundred days ? or eleven hundred and fifty days ?
It is a natural supposition that the time is meant to
correspond with the three years and a half (" a time,
tVv'o times, and half a time") of vii. 25, But here again
all certainty of detail is precluded by our ignorance
as to the exact length of years by which the writer
reckoned ; and how he treated the month Ve-adar, a
month of thirty days, which was intercalated once in
every six years.
Supposing that he allowed an intercalary fifteen days
for three and a half years, and took the Babylonian
' In ver. 26 the R.V. renders " it belongeth to many days to come.'
~ Comp. Gen. i. 5 ; 2 Cor. xi. 25. The word taniid includes both the
morning and evening sacrifice (Exod. xxix. 41). Pusey saj's (p. 220),
" The shift of halving the days is one of those monstt-rs which have
disgraced scientific expositions ' of Hebrew.' " Yet this is the view
of such scholars as Ewald, Hitzig, Kuenen, Cornill, Behrmann. The
latter quotes a parallel : "vgl. im Hildebrandsliede sumaro ente wintfo
sehstie = 30 Jahr,"
264 I'lii^ BOOK OF DANIEL
reckoning of twelve months of thirty days, then three
and a half years gives us twelve hundred and seventy-
five days, or, omitting any allowance for intercalation,
twelve hundred and sixty days.
If, then, " two thousand three hundred evening-
morning " means two thousand three hundred //a//" days,
we have one hundred and ten days too many for the
three and a half years.
And if the phrase means two thousand three hun-
dred///// da3^s, that gives us (counting thirty intercalary
days for Ve-adar) too little for seven years by two
hundred and fifty days. Some see in this a mystic
intimation that the period of chastisement shall for the
elect's sake be shortened.^ Some commentators reckon
seven years roughly, from the elevation of Menelaus to
the high-priesthood (Kisleu, b.c. i68 : 2 Mace. v. ii) to
the victory of Judas Maccabaeus over Nicanor at Adasa,
March, b.c. i6i (i Mace. vii. 25-50; 2 Mace. xv. 20-35).
In neither case do the calculations agree with the
twelve hundred and ninety or the thirteen hundred
and thirty-five da3'S of xii. 12, 13.
Entire volumes of tedious and wholly inconclusive
comment have been written on these combinations, but
by no reasonable supposition can Ave arrive at close
accuracy. Strict chronological accuracy was difficult
of attainment in those days, and was never a matter
about which the Jews, in particular, greatly troubled
themselves. We do not know either the Icnninus a
quo from which or the terminus ad quern to which the
writer reckoned. All that can be said is that it is
perfectly impossible for us to identify or exactly equi-
parate the three and a half years (vii. 25), the "two
' Matt. xxiv. 22.
THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT 265
thousand three hundred evening-morning" (viii. 14),
the seventy-two weeks (ix. 26), and the twelve hun-
dred and ninety days (xii. 11). Yet all those dates
have this point of resemblance about them, that they
ver}^ roughly indicate a space of about three and a
half years (more or less) as the time during which the
daily sacrifice should cease, and the Temple be polluted
and desolate.^
Turning now to the dates, we know that Judas the
Maccabee cleansed ^' ("justified " or vindicated," viii. 14)
the Temple on Kisleu 25 (December 25th, b.c. 165).
If we reckon back two thousand three hundred full
days from this date, it brings us to b.c. 171, in which
Menelaus, who bribed Antiochus to appoint him high
priest, robbed the Temple of some of its treasures^ and
procured the murder of the high priest Onias III.
In this year Antiochus sacrificed a great sow on the
altar of burnt offerings, and sprinkled its broth over
the sacred building. These crimes provoked the revolt
of the Jews, in which they killed Lysimachus, governor
of Syria, and brought on themselves a heavy retribution.'^
If we reckon back two thousand three hundred half-
days, eleven hundred and fifty whole days, we must go
back three years and seventy days, but we cannot tell
what exact event the writer had in mind as the starting-
point of his calculations. The actual time which elapsed
from the final defilement of the Temple by Apollonius,
' "These five passages agree in making the final distress last
during three years and a fraction : the only difference lies in the
magnitude of the fraction " (Bevan, p. 127).
- I Mace. iv. 41-56; 2 Mace. x. 1-5.
' See on this period Diod. Sic, Fr., xxvi. 79 ; Liv., xlii. 29 ; Polyb.,
Legal., 71; Justin, xxxiv. 2 ; Jen, Comm. in Dan., xi. 22; Jahn,
Hebr. Coinmonivealth, § xciv. ; Prideaiix, Connection, ii. 146.
266 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
the general of Antiochus, in b.c. i68, till its repurification
was roughly three years. Perhaps, however — for all
is uncertain — the writer reckoned from the earliest
steps taken, or contemplated, by Antiochus for the
the suppression of Judaism. The purification of the
Temple did not end the time of persecution, which
was to continue, first, for one hundred and forty days
longer, and then forty-five days more (xii. Ii, 12). It is
clear from this that the writer reckoned the beginning
and the end of troubles from different epochs which
we have no longer sufficient data to discover.
It must, however, be borne in mind that no minute
certainty about the exact dates is attainable. Many
authorities, from Prideaux^ down to Schurer,^ place
the desecration of the Temple towards the close of
B.C. 168. Kuenen sees reason to place it a year later.
Our authorities for this period of history are numerous,
but they are fragmentary, abbreviated, and often inexact.
Fortunately, so far as we are able to see, no very
important lesson is lost by our inability to furnish
an undoubted or a rigidly scientific explanation of the
minuter details.
Approximate Dates, as inferred by Cornill
AND Others ^
B.C.
Jeremiah's prophecy in Jer. xxv. 12 . . 605
Jeremiah's prophecy in Jer.. xxix. 10 . . 594
Destruction of the Temple . . . 586 or 588
Return of the Jewish exiles . . . 537
Decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezravii. 1)45^
' Connection, ii. l88.
" Gesch. d. V. Isr., i. 155.
' Some of these dates are uitcertain, and are variously given by
different authorities.
THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT 267
Approximate Dates {continued)
B.C.
Second decree (Neh. ii. i) . . . . 445
Accession of Antiochus Epiphanes (August,
Clinton) 175
Usurpation of tlie high-priesthood by Jason 175
Jason displaced by Menelaus . . . 172 (?)
Murder of Onias III (June) 171
Apollonius defiles the Temple . . . 168
War of independence ..... 166
Purification of the Temple by Judas the Mac-
cabee ..... (December) 165
Death of Antiochus 163
CHAPTER III
THE SEVENTY WEEKS
THIS chapter is occupied with the prayer of Daniel,
and with the famous vision of the seventy weeks
which has led to such interminable controversies, but
of which the interpretation no longer admits of any
certainty, because accurate data are not. forthcoming.
The vision is dated in the first year of Darius, the
son of Achashverosh, of the Median stock. ^ We have
seen already that such a person is unknown to history.
The date, however, accords well in this instance with
the literary standpoint of the writer. The vision is
sent as a consolation of perplexities suggested by the
writer's study of the Scriptures ; and nothing is more
naturally imagined than the fact that the overthrow
of the Babylonian Empire should have sent a Jewish
exile to the study of the rolls of his holy prophets, to
see what light they threw on the exile of his people.
He understood from " the books " the number of the
years " whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah
the prophet for the accomplishing of the desolation of
Jerusalem, even seventy years." ^ Such is the render-
' Achashverosh, Esther viii. lo; perhaps connected with A's/jq/W/'sZ/rt,
" eye of the kingdom " {Corp. Inscr: Sent., ii. 125).
^ By "the books " is here probably meant the Thorah or Pentateuch,
in which the writer discovered the key to the mystic meaning of the
268
THE SEVENTY WEEKS 269
ing of our Revisers, who here follow the A.V. (*' I
understood by books "), except that they rightly use the
definite article (LXX., ev Tal'i ^i(3Xot<;). Such too is the
view of Hitzig. Mr. Bevan seems to have pointed out
the real meaning of the passage, by referring not only
to the Pentateuch generally, as helping to interpret the
words of Jeremiah, but especially to Lev. xxvi. 18, 21,
24, 28.^ It was there that the writer of Daniel dis-
covered the method of interpreting the ** .seventy 3^ears "
spoken of by Jeremiah. The Book of Leviticus had
four times spoken of a sevenfold punishment — a punish-
ment " seven times more " for the sins of Israel. Now
this thought flashed upon the writer like a luminous
principle. Daniel, in whose person he wrote, had
arrived at the period at which the literal seventy years
of Jeremiah were — on some methods of computation —
upon the eve of completion : the writer himself is living
in the dreary times of Antiochus. Jeremiah had pro-
phesied that the nations should serve the King of
Babylon seventy years (Jer. xxv. 11), after which time
God's vengeance should fall on Babylon ; and again
(Jer. xxix, 10, 1 1), that after seventy years the exiles
should return to Palestine, since the thoughts of
Jehovah towards them were thoughts of peace and not
of evil, to give them a future and a hope.
The writer of Daniel saw, nearly four centuries later,
seventy years. It was not in the two sections of Jeremiah himself
(called, according to Kimchi, Seplier Hamattanah and Scpher Hagalon)
that he found this key. Jeremiah is here Yirmyah, as in Jer.
xxvii.-xxix. See Jer, xxv. Ii ; Ezek. xxxvii. 21 ; Zech. i. 12. In the
Epistle of Jeremy (ver. 2) the seventy years become seven generations
{Xphvos fiUKpoi 'dus iirira yeveCiv). Sec too Dillman's Enocli, p. 293.
' Dan., p. 146. Comp. a similar usage in Aul. Gel!., Noct. Aii.,
iii. 10, " Se jam undccmiani attiiorHni heMoniach'm \ngre5siim esse";
and Arist., Polit., vii. 16.
270 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
that after all only a mere handful of the exiles, whom
the Jews themselves compared to the chaff in comparison
with the wheat, had returned from exile ; that the
years which followed had been cramped, dismal, and
distressful ; that the splendid hopes of the Messianic
kingdom, which had glowed so brightly on the fore-
shortened horizon of Isaiah and so many of the
prophets, had never yet been fulfilled ; and that these
anticipations never showed fewer signs of fulfilment
than in the midst of the persecuting furies of Antiochus,
supported by the widespread apostasies of the Hellen-
ising Jews, and the vile ambition of such renegade
high priests as Jason and Mcnelaus.
That the difficulty was felt is shown by the fact that
the Epistle of Jeremy (ver. 2) extends the epoch of
captivity to two hundred and ten years (7 x 30),
whereas in-Jer. xxix. 10 " seventy years " are distinctly
mentioned.^
What was the explanation of this startling apparent
discrepancy between " the sure word of prophecy " and
the gloomy realities of history ?
The writer saw it in a mystic or allegorical inter-
pretation of Jeremiah's seventy years. The prophet
could not (he thought) have meant seventy literal years.
The number seven indeed played its usual m3^stic part
in the epoch of punishment. Jerusalem had been taken
B.C. 588 ; the first return of the exiles had been about
B.C. 538. The Exile therefore had, from one point of
view, lasted forty-nine years — i.c.^ 7^7- But even if
seventy years were reckoned from the fourth year of
Jehoiakim (b.c. 606?) to the decree of Cyrus (b.c. 536),
and if these seventy years could be made out, still
' See Fritzsche ad loc. ; Ewald, Hist. 0/ Isr., v. 140.
THE SEVENTY WEEKS 271
the hopes of the Jews were on the whole miserably
frustrated.'
Surely then — so thought the writer — the real meaning
of Jeremiah must have been misunderstood ; or, at any
rate, only partially understood. He must have meant,
not " years," but weeks of years — Sabbatical years. And
that being so, the real Messianic fulfilments were not to
come till four hundred and ninety years after the begin-
ning of the Exile ; and this clue he found in Leviticus.
It was indeed a clue which lay ready to the hand of
any one who was perplexed b}^ Jeremiah's prophecy,
for the word y-12'J*, e^So/^d^, means, not only the week,
but also " seven," and the seventh year ; '' and the
Chronicler had already declared that the reason why
the land was to lie waste for seventy years was that
"the land" was "to enjo}' her Sabbaths"; in other
words, that, as seventy Sabbatical years had been wholly
neglected (and indeed unheard of) during the period of
the monarchy — which he reckoned at four hundred and
ninety years — therefore it was to enjoy those Sabbatical
years continuously while there was no nation in Pales-
tine to cultivate the soil.^
' The writer of 2 Chron. xxxv. 17, 18, xxxvi. 21, 22, evidently
supposed that seventy years had elapsed between the destruction of
Jerusalem and the decree of Cyrus — which is only a period of fifty
years. The Jewish writers were wholly without means for forming an
accurate chronology. For instance, the Prophet Zechariah (i. 12),
writing in the second year of Darius, son of Hystaspes (b.c. 520),
thinks that the seventy years were only then concluding. In fact, the
seventy years may be dated from b.c. 606 (fourth year of Jehoia-
kim) ; or B.C. 598 (Jehoiachin) ; or from the destruction of the Temple
(B.C. 588); and may be supposed to end at the decree of Cyrus (b.c.
536) ; or the days of Zerubbabel (Ezra v. l) ; or the decree of Darius
(B.C. 518, Ezra vi. 1-12).
- Lev. XXV. 2, 4.
^ 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21. See Bevan, p. 14.
272 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Another consideration may also have led the writer
to his discovery. From the coronation of Saul to the
captivity of Zachariah, reckoning the recorded length
of each reign and giving seventeen years to Saul (since
the "forty 3'ears" of Acts xiii. 21 is obviously unten-
able), gave four hundred and ninety years, or, as the
Chronicler implies, seventy unkept Sabbatic years. The
writer had no means for an accurate computation of
the time which had elapsed since the destruction of the
Temple. But as there were four hundred and eighty
years and twelve high priests from Aaron to Ahimaaz,
and four hundred and eighty years and twelve high
priests from Azariah I. to Jozadak, who was priest at
the beginning of the Captivity, — so there were twelve
high priests from Jozadak to Onias III. ; and this
seemed to imply a lapse of some four hundred and
ninety years in round numbers.^
The writer introduces what he thus regarded as a
consoling and illuminating discovery in a striking
manner. Daniel coming to understand for the first
time the real meaning of Jeremiah's *' seventy 3'ears,"
" set his face unto the Lord God, to seek prayer and
supplication with fasting and sackcloth and ashes." ^
His pra^'er is thus given : —
It falls into three strophes of equal length, and is
"all alive and aglow with a pure fire of genuine repent-
ance, humbly assured faith, and most intense petition." ^
At the same time it is the composition of a literary
* See Cornill, Die Siebzig Jahrwochen Daniels, pp. 14-18.
'^ The LXX. and Theodotion, with a later ritual bias, make ihe fasting
a means towards the prayer : evpelv irpoaevxriv koL ^Xeoj Iv vriareiais.
^ Ewald, p. 278. The first part (vv. 4-14) is mainly occupied with con-
fessions and acknowledgment of God's justice; the last part (vv. 15-19)
with entreaty for pardon : con/essio (vv. -1-14) ; consohtiu (vv. 15-19'!
(Melancthon).
THE SEVENTY WEEKS
275
writer, for in phrase after phrase it recalls various
passages of Scripture.^ It closely resembles the prayers
of Ezra and Nehemiah, and is so nearly parallel with
the prayer of the apocryphal Baruch that Ewald regards
it as an intentional abbreviation of Baruch ii. i-iii. 39.
Ezra, however, confesses the sins of his nation without
asking for forgiveness ; and Nehemiah likewise praises
God for His mercies, but does not plead for pardon or
deliverance ; but Daniel entreats pardon for Israel and
asks that his own prayer may be heard. The sins of
Israel in vv. 5, 6, fall under the heads of wandering,
lawlessness, rebellion, apostasy, and heedlessness. It
is one of the marked tendencies of the later Jewish
writings to degenerate into centos of phrases from the
Law and the Prophets. It is noticeable that the name
Jehovah occurs in this chapter of Daniel alone (in vv. 2, 4,
10, 13, 14, 20) ; and that he also addresses God as El,
Elohim, and Adonai.
In the first division of the prayer (vv. 4- 10) Daniel
' Besides the parallels which follow, it has phrases from Exod.
XX. 6; Deut. vii. 21, x. 17; Jer. vii. 19; Psalm xliv. 16, cxxx. 4;
2 Chron. xxxvi. 15, 16. Mr. Deane (Bishop EUicott's Coninieniary,
p. 407) thus exhibits the details of special resemblances : —
Dan. ix.
Ezra ix.
Neh. ix.
Baruch.
Verse.
Verse.
Verse.
4
7
32
5
7
33> 34
1. II
0
7
32,33
7
6,7
32, 33
1- 15-17
a
6,7
33
9
17
13
...
ii.7
14
1 15
33
15
10
n. II
18
ii. 19
19
11. IS
18
274 THE BOOK OF DANTEL
admits the faithfulness and mercy of God, and deplores
the transgressions of his people from the highest to
the lowest in all lands.
In the second part (vv. 11-14) he sees in these
transgressions the fulfilment of " the curse and the
oath " written in the Law of Moses, with special refer-
ence to Lev. XX vi. 14, 18, etc. In spite of all their
sins and miseries they had not " stroked the face " of
the Lord their God.^
The third section (vv. 15-19) appeals to God by
His past mercies and deliverances to turn away His
wrath and to pity the reproach of His people. Daniel
entreats Jehovah to hear his prayer, to make His face
shine on His desolated sanctuary, and to behold the
horrible condition of His people and of His holy city.
Not for their sakes is He asked to show His great
compassion, but because His Name is called upon His
city and His people.^
Such is the prayer ; and while Daniel was still
speaking, praying, confessing his own and Israel's
sins, and interceding before Jehovah for the hoi}'
mountain — yea, even during the utterance of his
prayer — the Gabriel of his former vision came speed-
ing to him in full flight ^ at the time of the evening
' ix. 13 (Heb.). Comp. Exod. xxxii. 13; i Sam. xiii. I2; I Kings
xiii. 6, etc.
■■^ Comp. Jer. xxxii. 17-23; Isa. Ixiii. 11-16.
^ ix. 21. LXX., Tax^i- (p^pofJ-fvos; Theodot., irer6fJ.evos ; Vulg., cito
volans ; A.V. and R.V., " being made to fly swiftly" ; R.V. marg., " being
sore wearied " ; A.V. marg., " with weariness " ; Von Lengerke, " being
caused to hasten with haste." The verb elsewhere always connotes
weariness. If that be the meaning here, it must refer to Daniel. If
it here means "flying," it is the only passage in the Old Testament
where angels fly ; but sec Isa. vi. 2 ; Psalm civ, 4, etc. The wings
of angels are first mentioned in the Book of Enoch, Ixi. ; but see Rev
xiv. 6 — cherubim and seraphim have wings.
THE SEVENTY WEEKS 275
sacrifice.' The archangel tells him that no sooner had
his supplication begun than he sped on his way, for
Daniel is a dearly beloved one.^ Therefore he bids
him take heed to the word and to the vision : —
1. Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people, and
upon thy holy city ^ —
(a) to finish (or " restrain ") the transgression ;
(/3) to make an end of (or " seal up," Theodot.
a(ppa'y[aai) sins ; *
(7) to make reconciliation for (or " to purge away ")
iniquity ;
(S) to bring in everlasting righteousness ;
(e) to seal up vision and prophet (Heb., ndbi; LXX.,
TrpocfyrjTTjv) ; and
(^) to anoint the Most Holy (or "a Most Holy
Place"; LXX., eixppdvai aytov wyloiv).
2. From the decree to restore Jerusalem unto the
Anointed One (or " the Messiah "), the Prince, shall be
seven weeks. For sixty-two weeks Jerusalem shall be
built again with street and moat, though in troublous
times. ^
3. After these sixty-two weeks —
(a) an Anointed One shall be cut off, and shall have
' In the time of the historic Daniel, as in the brief three and a
half years of Antiochus, the tmnld had ceased.
^ ix. 23. Heb., eesh hamudoth ; Vulg., vir desideriornni, " a man of
desires" ; Theodot., dvrjp fTndvfMiQv. Comp. x. 11, 19, and Jer. xxxi. 20,
where "a pleasant child " is " a son of caresses" ; and the " amor et
delicice generis humani"' applied to Titus; and the names David,
Jedidiah, " beloved of Jehovah." The LXX. render the word
eXeeiJ'os, " an object of pity."
^ Daniel used Shabuhn for weeks, not Shabuoth.
* In ver. 24 the QWi and Kethibh vary, as do also the versions.
* For cliaroots, "moat" (Ewald), the A.V. has "wall," and in the
marg. "breach" or "ditch." The word occurs for "ditches" in the
Talmud. The text of the verse is uncertain.
276 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
no help (?) (or " there shall be none belonging to
him ") ; ^
(/3) the people of the prince that shall come shall
destroy the city and the sanctuary ;
(7) his end and the end shall be with a flood, and
war, and desolation ;
(8) for one week this alien prince shall make a
covenant with many ;
(e) for half of that week he shall cause the sacrifice
and burnt offering to cease ;
(^) and upon the wing of abominations [shall conie~\
one that maketh desolate ;
(77) and unto the destined consummation [yoratli] shall
be poured out upon a desolate one (?) (or " the horrible
one ").
Much is uncertain in the text, and much in the
translation ; but the general outline of the declaration
is clear in many of the chief particulars, so far as they
are capable of historic verification. Instead of being
a mystical prophecy which floated purely in the air,
and in which a week stands (as Keil supposes) for
unknown, heavenl}'^, and symbolic periods — in which
case no real information would have been vouchsafed —
we are expressly told that it was intended to give the
seer a definite, and even a minutely detailed, indication
of the course of events.
Let us now take the revelation which is sent to the
perplexed mourner step by step.
I. Seventy weeks are to elapse before any perfect
deliverance is to come. We are nowhere expressly
told that year-weeks are meant, but this is implied
' Perhaps because neither Jason nor Menelaus (being apostate)
were regarded as genuine successors of Onias III.
THE SEVENTY WEEKS 277
throughout, as the only possible means of explaining
either the vision or the history. The conception, as
we have seen, would come to readers quite naturally,
since Shabbath meant in Hebrew, not only the seventh
day of the week, but the seventh year in each week
of 3^ears. Hence " seventy weeks " means four hundred
and ninety years.^ Not until the four hundred and
ninety years — the seventy weeks of years — are ended
will the time have come to complete the prophecy which
only had a sort of initial and imperfect fulfilment in
seventy actual years.
The precise meaning attached in the writer's mind
to the events which are to mark the close of the four
hundred and ninety 3'ears — namel}', (a) the ending of
transgression ; (/3) the sealing up of sins ; (7) the atone-
ment for iniquity ; (S) the bringing in of everlasting
righteousness ; and (e) the sealing up of the vision and
prophet (or prophecy -) — cannot be further defined by
us. It belongs to the Messianic hope.^ It is the pro-
phecy of a time which may have had some dim and
partial analogies at the end of Jeremiah's seventy years,
but which the writer thought would be more richly and
finally fulfilled at the close of the Antiochian persecu-
tion. At the actual time of his writing that era of
restitution had not yet begun.
But (^) another event, which would mark the close
of the seventy year-weeks, was to be " the anointing
of a Most Holy."
What does this mean ?
Theodotion and the ancient translators render it
"a Holy of Holies." But throughout the whole Old
' Numb. xiv. 34 ; Lev. xxvi. 34 ; Ezek. iv. 6.
* Comp. Jer. xxxii. 11, 44.
' See Isa. xlvi. 3, li. 5, liii. u ; Jer. xxiii. 6, etc.
278 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Testament " Holy of Holies " is never once used of a
person, though it occurs forty-four times.' Keil and
his school point to i Chron. xxiii. 13 as an exception ;
but *^ Nil agit exemptum quod litem lite resolvit."
In that verse some propose the rendering, " to
sanctify, as most hoi}'', Aaron and his sons for ever " ;
but both the A.V. and the R.V. render it, "Aaron was
separated that he should sanctify the most holy things,
he and his sons for ever." If there be a doubt as to
the rendering, it is perverse to adopt the one which
makes the usage differ from that of every other passage
in Holy Writ.
Now the phrase " most holy " is most frequently
applied to the great altar of sacrifice.^ It is therefore
natural to explain the present passage as a reference
to the reanointing of the altar of sacrifice, primarily
in the days of Zerubbabel, and secondarily by Judas
Maccabaeus after its profanation by Antiochus Epi-
phanes.^
2. But in the more detailed explanation which
follows, the seventy year-weeks are divided into
7 -h 62 -h I.
(a) At the end of the first seven week-years (after
forty-nine years) Jerusalem should be restored, and
there should be "an Anointed, a Prince."*
Some ancient Jewish commentators, followed by
many eminent and learned moderns,^ understand this
Anointed One {Mashiach) and Prince {Nagid) to be
' For the anomting of the altar see Exod. xxix. 36, xl. 10 ; Lev.
viii. 1 1 ; Numb. vii. 1. It would make no difference in the tisus loqttendi
if neither Zcrubbabel's nor Judas's altar was actually anointed.
''' It is only used thirteen times of the Debliir, or Holiest Place.
■* I Mace. iv. 54.
' Theodot., 'iws ^/'((rroi} rfjovixivov.
* Saadia the Gaon, Rashi, Von Lengerkc, Hitzig, Schiirer, Coniill.
THE SEI/ENTY WEEKS 279
Cyrus ; and that there can be no objection to conferring
on him the exalted title of " Messiah " is amply proved
by the fact that Isaiah himself bestows it upon him
(Isa. xlv. i).
Others, however, both ancient (like Eusebius) and
modern (like Gratz), prefer to explain the term of
the anointed Jewish high priest, Joshua, the son of
Jozadak. For the term "Anointed" is given to the
high priest in Lev. iv. 3, vi. 20 ; and Joshua's position
among the exiles might well entitle him, as much as
Zerubbabel himself, to the title of Nagid or Prince.^
(/3) After this restoration of Temple and priest, sixty-
two weeks {i.e., four hundred and thirty-f^ur years) are to
elapse, during which Jerusalem is indeed to exist "with
street and trench " — but in the straitness of the times. ^
This, too, is clear and easy of comprehension. It
exactly corresponds with the depressed condition of
Jewish life during the Persian and early Grecian
epochs, from the restoration of the Temple, b.c. 538, to
B.C. 171, when the false high priest Menelaus robbed
the Temple of its best treasures. This is indeed, so
far as accurate chronology is concerned, an unverifiable
period, for it only gives us three hundred and sixt}^-
seven years instead of four hundred and thirty-four : —
but of that I will speak later on. The punctuation of
the original is disputed. Theodotion, the Vulgate, and
our A.V. punctuate in ver. 25, " From the going forth of
the commandment " (" decree " or " word ") " that Jeru-
' Hag. i. I ; Zech. iii. i ; Ezra iii. 2. Comp. Ecclus. xlv. 24; Jos.,
Antt., XII. iv. 2, irpoaTdTTjs ; and see Bevan, p. 156.
- We see from Zech. i. 12, ii. 4, that even in the second year of
Darius Hystaspis Jerusalem had neither walls nor gates ; and even
in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the wall was still broken down
and the gates burnt (Neh. i. 3).
28o THE BOOK OF DANIEL
salcm should be restored and rebuilt, unto an Anointed,
a Prince, are seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks."
Accepting this view, Von Lengerke and Hitzig make
the seven weeks run parallel with the first seven in the
sixty-two. This indeed makes the chronology a little
more accurate, but introduces an unexplained and a
fantastic element. Consequently most modern scholars,
including even such writers as Keil, and our Revisers
follow the Masoretic punctuation, and put the stop after
the seven weeks, separating them entirely from the
following sixty-two.
3. After the sixty-two weeks is to follow a series of
events, and all these point quite distinctly to the epoch
of Antiochus Epiphanes.
(a) Ver. 26. — An Anointed One ^ shall be cut off with
all that belongs to him.
There can be no reasonable doubt that this is a
reference to the deposition of the high priest Onias III.,
and his murder by Andronicus (B.C. 171)." This startling
event is mentioned in 2 Mace. iv. 34, and by Josephus
{Antt., XII. V. i), and in Dan. xi. 22. It is added, " and
ito . . . to him? Perhaps the word " helper " (xi. 45) has
fallen out of the text, as Gratz supposes ; or the words
may mean, " there is no [priest] for it [the people].*
The A.V. renders it, *' but not for himself"; and in
' LXX., dTTOffTaOriffeTai xpio'fJ'Ci koI oiK iarai ; Theodot., i^oXeOpevdijcerai
XptofJ^O' Kal ovK iaTLV iv avrip ; Aquil., i^. ifKei/x/xivos km. ovx virap^n aifTCf.
^ See xi. 22. Von Lengerke, however, and others refer it to
Seleucus Philopator, murdered bj' Heliodorus (b.c. 175).
' SjT. Aquil., oi'x VTrdp^ei oi)T(jJ; Theodot., Kai oi'\- ecrrij' ^V aurq} ;
LXX., Kal OVK iarai] Vulg., " Et non erit ejus populus qui cum negaturus
est." The A.V. "and not for himself" is untenable. It would have
been 1? N?1. See Pusc}', p. 182, ;/.
* Steudel, Hofmann. So too Cornill, ]). 10 : '' Ein fromnier Jude
das Hoher Priestcrthum mit Onias fiir erloschen ansah."'
THE SEVENTY WEEKS • 281
the margin, "and shall have nothing"; or, "and they
[the Jews] shall be no more his people." The R.V.
renders it, "and shall have nothing." I believe, with
Dr. Joel, that in the Hebrew words veeyn Id there may
be a sort of cryptographic allusion to the name Onias.^
(/3) The people of the coming prince shall devastate
the city and the sanctuary (translation uncertain).
This is an obvious allusion to the destruction and
massacre inflicted on Jerusalem by Apollonius and the
army of Antiochus Epiphanes (b.c. 167). Antiochus is
called " the prince that shall cornel^ because he was at
Rome when Onias III. was murdered (b.c. 171).'^
(7) "And until the end shall be a war, a sentence '
of desolation " (Hitzig, etc.) ; or, as Ewald renders it,
" Until the end of the war is the decision concerning the
horrible thing."
This alludes to the troubles of Jerusalem until the
heaven-sent Nemesis fell on the profane enemy of the
saints in the miserable death of Antiochus in Persia.
(8) But meanwhile he will have concluded a covenant
with many for one week.^
In any case, whatever be the exact reading or
rendering, this seems to be an allusion to the fact
that Antiochus was confirmed in his perversity and led
on to extremes in the enforcement of his attempt to
Hellenise the Jews and to abolish their national religion
by the existence of a large party of flagrant apostates.
These were headed by their godless and usurping high
' Comp. iS ]\S1 and V3n (Joel, Notisen, p. 21).
- Jos., Antt. XII. V. 4; I Mace. i. 29-40.
* Here again the meaning is uncertain ; and Gratz, altering the
reading, thinks that it should be, " He shall abolish the covenant
[with God] for the many "; or, "shall cause the man3' to transgress
the covenant."
282 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
priests, Jason and Menelaus. All this is strongly
- emphasised in the narrative of the Book of Maccabees.
This attempted apostasy lasted for one week — /.t'., for
seven years ; the years intended being probably the
first seven of the reign of Antiochus, from b.c. 175 to
B.C. 168. During this period he was aided by wicked
men, who said, " Let us go and make a covenant with
the heathen round about us ; for since we departed
from them we have had much sorrow." Antiochus
" gave them licence to do after the ordinances of the
heathen/' so that they built a gymnasium at Jerusalem,
obliterated the marks of circumcision, and were joined
to the heathen (i Mace. i. 10-15).
(e) For the half of this week {i.e., for three and a half
years) the king abolished the sacrifice and the oblation
or meat offering.'
This alludes to the suppression of the most distinctive
ordinances of Jewish worship, and the general defile-
ment of the Temple after the setting up of the heathen
altar. The reckoning seems to be from the edict promul-
gated some months before December, 168, to December,
165, when Judas the Maccabee reconsecrated the Temple.
(f) The sentence which follows is surrounded with
every kind of uncertainty.
The R.V. renders it, " And upon the wing [or, pin-
nacle] of abominations shall come [or, be] one that
maketh desolate."
The A.V. has, "And for the ovei'spreading of abomi-
nations " (or marg., " with the abominable armies ") " he
shall make it desolate." ^
' Dan. ix. 27. Heb., Zebach 00-minchah, " the bloody and unbloody
ofl'ering. "
'^ The special allusion, whatever it may precisely mean, is found
under three diflorcnt designations : (i) In viii. 13 it is called happcsltang
THE SEVENTY WEEKS 283
It is from the LXX. that we derive the famous
expression, " abomination of desolation," referred to by
St. Matthew (xxiv. 15 : cf Luke xxi. 20) in the last
discourse of our Lord.
Other translations are as follows : —
Gesenius : " Desolation comes upon the horrible
wing of a rebel's host."
Ewald: "And above will be the horrible wing of
abominations."
Wicseler : "And a desolation shall arise against the
wing of abominations."
shonteem ; Gk., ij a/iapTla epTj/xdiaews ; \ u\g., peccatuni desolationis.
(ii) In ix. 27 (comp. ix. 31) it is shiqqoolslm mshomeem; Gk.,
^5^\vy/xa Trjs iprifMUffeus ; W\i\g., aboininatio desolationis. (iii) Inxii. 11
it is sitiqqoots shoiiicem ; Gk,, t6 ^d^Xvy/ma epr)/j,Mff€U)s ; Vu]g., abomi-
natio in desolationetn. Some traditional fact must (as Dr. Joel saj's)
have underlain the rendering " of dcsolatioit" for '■^ of the desolator"
111 xi. 31 Theodotion has -qfpavicrixivwv, "of things done away with,"
for epr)fj.u)<T4uv. The expression with which the New Testament has
made us so familiar is found also in I Mace. i. 51 (comp. I Mace.
vi. 7) : " they built the abomination of desolation upon the altar."
There " the abomination " seems clearly to mean a smaller altar for
heathen sacrifice to Zeus, built on the great altar of burnt offering.
Perhaps the writer of Daniel took the word shotneem, " desolation," as
a further definition oi shiqqoots, "abomination," from popular speech;
and it may have involved a reference to Lev. xxvi. 15-31 : "If ye
shall despise My statutes. . . I will even appoint over you terror
. . . and I will make your cities waste, and appoint your sanctuaries
unto desolation." The old Jewish exegetes referred the prophecy to
Antiochus Epiphanes; Josephus and later writers applied it to the
Romans. Old Christian expositors regarded it as Messianic; but
even Jerome records nine different views of commentators, many of
them involving the grossest historic errors and absurdities. Of Post-
Reformation expositors down to the present century scarcely two
agree in their interpretations. At the present day modern critics of
any weight almost unanimously regard these chapters, in their
primary significance, as vaiicinia <?.v eventtt, as some older Jewish and
Christian exegetes had already done. Hitzig sarcastically sa^s that
the exegetes have here fallen into all sorts of sliiqqootsini themselves.
284 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Von Lengerke, Hengstenherg^ Pusey : " And over the
edge [or, pinnacle'] of abominations [cometh] the dcso-
lator " ; — which they understand to mean that Antiochus
will rule over the Temple defiled by heathen rites.
Kranichfeld and Kcil : "And a destroyer comes on
the wings of idolatrous abominations."
Knenen, followed by others, boldly alters the text
from ve^al k'naph, " and upon the wing," into ve'al kanno,
" and instead thereof" -
"And instead thereof" {i.e., in the place of the sacri-
fice and meat offering) " there shall be abominations."
It is needless to weary the reader with further attempts
at translation ; but however uncertain may be the exact
reading or rendering, few modern commentators doubt
that the allusion is to the smaller heathen altar built by
Antiochus above {i.e., on the summit) of the " Most
Holy " — i.e., the great altar of burnt sacrifice — over-
shadowing it like " a wing " (kanaph), and causing
desolations or abominations (shiqqootsini). That this
interpretation is the correct one can hardly be doubted
in the light of the clearer references to " the abomina-
tion that maketh desolate" in xi. 31 and xii. ii. In
favour of this we have the almost contemporary inter-
pretation of the Book of Maccabees. The author of
that history directly applies the phrase " the abomina-
tion of desolation " to the idol altar set up by Antiochus
(i Mace. i. 54, vi. 7).
{tf) Lastly, the terrible drama shall end by an out-
pouring of wrath, and a sentence of judgment on
" the desolation " (R.V.) or " the desolate " (A.V.).
This can only refer to the ultimate judgment with
which Antiochus is menaced.
' Comp. Trrepijyiov (Matt. iv. 5).
- Kuencn, His/. Cri/. Oiulerzook., ii. 472.
THE SEVENTY WEEKS 285
It will be seen then that, despite all uncertainties in
the text, in the translation, and in the details, we have
in these verses an unmistakably clear foreshadowing
of the same persecuting king, and the same disastrous
events, with which the mind of the writer is so pre-
dominantly haunted, and which are still more clearly
indicated in the subsequent chapter.
Is it necessary, after an inquiry inevitably tedious,
and of little or no apparently spiritual profit or signi-
ficance, to enter further into the intolerably and inter-
minably perplexed and voluminous discussions as to
the beginning, the ending, and the exactitude of the
seventy weeks ? ^ Even St. Jerome gives, by way of
specimen, nine different interpretations in his time, and
comes to no decision of his own. After confessing that
all the interpretations were individual guesswork, he
leaves every reader to his own judgment, and adds :
" Dicant quid unusquisque sensent, lectoris arbitrio dere-
linquens cnjus exposilionem seqiti dcheatT
I cannot think that the least advantage can be de-
rived from doing so.
For scarcely any two leading commentators agree
as to details ; — or even as to any fixed principles by
' Any one who thinks the inquiry likely to lead to any better
results than those here indicated has only to wade through Zockler's
comment in Lange's Bibelwerk (" Ezekiel and Daniel," i. 186-221). It
is hard to conceive any reading more intolerably wearisome ; and at the
close it leaves the reader in a state of more hopeless confusion than
before. The discussion also occupies many pages of Pusey (pp. 162-
231) ; but neither in his hypothesis nor any other are the dates exact.
He can only saj', " It were not of any account if we could not interpret
these minor details. De minimis non curat iex." On the view that
the seventy weeks were to end with the advent of Christ we ask :
(l) Why do no two Christian interpreters agree about the interpreta-
tion? (2) Why did not the Apostles and Evangelists refer to so
decisive an evidence ?
286 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
which they profess to determine the date at which the
period of seventy weeks is to begin or is to end ; —
or whether they are to be reckoned continuously, or
with arbitrary misplacements or discontinuations ; —
or even whether they are not purely sj^mbolical, so as
to have no reference to any chronological indications ; '
— or whether they are to be interpreted as referring
to one special series of events, or to be regarded as
having many fulfilments by " springing and germinal
developments." The latter view is, however, distinctly
tenable. It applies to all prophecies, inasmuch as his-
tory repeats itself; and our Lord referred to another
" abomination of desolation " which in His days was
yet to come.-
There is not even an initial agreement — or even the
data as to an agreement — whether the " years " to be
counted are solar years of three hundred and forty-three
days, or lunar years, or " mystic " years, or Sabbath
years of forty-nine years, or "indefinite" years; or where
they are to begin and end, or in what fashion they are
to be divided. All is chaos in the existing commentaries.
As for any received or authorised interpretation, there
not only is none, but never has been. The Jewish
interpreters differ from one another as widely as the
Christian. Even in the days of the Fathers, the early
exegetes were so hopelessly at sea in their methods
' On this, however, we may remark with Cornill," Eine Apokalypse,
deren diroKaXifeis unenthiilbar sind, ware ein nonsen?, eine contra-
dictio in adjecto " {Die Siebsig Jahrwochen, p. 3). The indication was
obviously meant to be understood, and to the contemporaries of the
writer, familiar with the minuter facts of the daj', it probably was
perfectly clear.
■•= Luke ii. 25, 26, 38; Matt. xxiv. 15. Comp. 2 Thess. ii.; Jos.,
Anti., X. -xxii. 7.
THE SEVENTY WEEKS 287
of application that St. Jerome contents himself, just as
I have done, with giving no opinion of his own.^
The attempt to refer the prophecy of the seventy
weeks primarily or directly to the coming and death
of Christ, or the desolation of the Temple by Titus,
can only be supported by immense manipulations, and
by hypotheses so crudely impossible that they would
have made the prophecy practically meaningless both
to Daniel and to any subsequent reader. The hope-
lessness of this attempt of the so-called " orthodox "
interpreters is proved by their own fundamental dis-
agreements.^ It is finally discredited by the fact that
neither our Lord, nor His Apostles, nor any of the
earliest Christian writers once appealed to the evidence
of this prophecy, which, on the principles of Hengsten-
berg and Dr. Pusey, would have been so decisive I If
such a proof lay ready to their hand — a proof definite
and chronological — why should they have deliberately
passed it over, while the}^ referred to other prophecies
so much more general, and so much less precise in dates?
Of course it is open to any reader to adopt the view
of Keil and others, that the prophecy is Messianic, but
only typically and generally so.
On the other hand, it may be objected that the
Antiochian hypothesis breaks down, because — though it
' " Scio de hac queestione ab eruditissimis viris varie disputatum
et tinutnqnemque pro captii ingenii siii dixisse quod senserat" (Jer.
in Dan., ix.). In other words, there was not only no received inter-
pretation in St. Jerome's day, but the comments of the Fathers were
even then a chaos of arbitrarj^ guesses.
- Pusey makes out a table of the divergent interpretation of the
commentators, whom, in his usual ecclesiastical fashion, he charitably
classes together as "unbelievers," from Corrodi and Eichhorn down
to Herzfeld. But quite as striking a table of divergencies might
be drawn up of " orthodox " commentators.
288 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
does not pretend to resort to any of the wild, arbitrary,
and I had almost said preposterous, hypotheses invented
by those who approach the interpretation of the Book
with a-pn'o?'t and a-posteriori^ assumptions — it still does
not accurately correspond to ascertainable dates.
But to those who are guided in their exegesis, not
by unnatural inventions, but by the great guiding
principles of history and literature, this consideration
presents no difficulty. Any exact accuracy of chrono-
logy would have been far more surprising in a writes
of the Maccabean era than round numbers and
vague computations. Precise computation is nowhere
prevalent in the sacred books. The object of those
books always is the conveyance of eternal, moral, and
spiritual insti'uction. To such purely mundane and
secondary matters as close reckoning of dates the
Jewish writers show themselves manifestly indifferent.
It is possible that, if we were able to ascertain the data
which lay before the writer, his calculations might seem
less divergent from exact numbers than they now appear.
More than this we cannot affirm.
What was the date from which the writer calculated
his seventy weeks ? Was it from the date of Jeremiah's
first prophecy (xxv. 12), b.c. 605? or his second
prophecy (xxix. lo), eleven years later, b.c. 594? or
from the destruction of the first Temple, b.c. 586? or,
as some Jews thought, from the first year of ** Darius
the Mede " ? or from the decree of Artaxerxes in Neh.
ii. 1-9 ? or from the birth of Christ — the date assumed
by Apollinaris ? All these views have been adopted by
various Rabbis and Fathers ; but it is obvious that not
one of them accords with the allusions of the narrative
' Thus Eiisebius, without a shadow of any pretence at argument
makes the last ivcck mean seventy years ! (^Deni. Evan., viii.).
THE SEVENTY WEEKS 289
and prayer, except that which makes the destruction
of the Temple the terminus a quo. In the confusion of
historic reminiscences and the rarity of written docu-
ments, the writer may not have consciously distinguished
this date (b.c. 588) from the date of Jeremiah's prophecy
(B.C. 594). That there were differences of computation
as regards Jeremiah's seventy years, even in the age of
the Exile, is sufficiently shown by the different views as
to their termination taken by the Chronicler (2 Chron.
xxxvi. 22), who fixes it b.c. 536, and by Zechariah
(Zech, i. 12), who fixes it about b.c. 519.
As to the terminus ad quern, it is open to any
commentator to say that the prediction may point to
many subsequent and analogous fulfilments ; but no
competent and serious reader who judges of these
chapters by the chapters themselves and by their own
repeated indications, can have one moment's hesitation
in the conclusion that the writer is thinking mainly of
the defilement of the Temple in the days of Antiochus
Epiphanes, and its reconsecration (in round numbers)
three and a half years later by Judas Maccabaeus
(December 25th, B.C. 164).
It is true that from b.c. 588 to b.c. 164 only gives
us four hundred and twenty-four years, instead of four
hundred and ninety years. How is this to be accounted
for ? Ewald supposes the loss of some passage in the
text which would have explained the discrepancy ; and
that the text is in a somewhat chaotic condition is
proved by its inherent philological difficulties, and by
the appearance which it assumes in the Septuagint.
The first seven weeks indeed, or forty-nine years,
approximately correspond to the time between b.c. 588
(the destruction of the Temple) and b.c. 536 (the decree
of Cyrus) ; but the following sixty-two weeks should
19
2i)0 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
give us four hundred and thirty-four years from the
time of Cyrus to the cutting oflf of the Anointed One,
by the murder of Onias III. in B.C. 171, whereas it only
gives us three hundred and sixty-five. How are we
to account for this miscalculation to the extent of at
least sixty-five 3'ears ?
Not one single suggestion has ever accounted for it,
or has ever given exactitude to these computations on
any tenable hypothesis.*
But Schtirer has shown tliat exactly siinilay viistakes
of reckoning zx^ made even by so learned and industrious
an historian as Josephus.
1. Thus in his Jewish War (VT. iv. 8) he says that
there were six hundred and thirty-nine years between
the second year of Cyrus and the destruction of the
Temple by Titus (a.d. 70). Here is an error of more
than thirty years.
2. In his Antiquities (XX. x.) he says that there
were four hundred and thirty-four years between the
Return from the Captivity (b.c. 536) and the reign of
Antiochus Eupator (b.c. 164-162). Here is an error
of more than sixty years.
3. In Antt., XIII. xi. i, he reckons four hundred
and eighty-one years between the Return from the
Captivity and the time of Aristobulus (b.c. 105-IO4).
Here is an error of some fifty years.
Again, the Jewish Hellenist Demetrius - reckons five
hundred and seventy-three years from the Captivity of
the Ten Tribes (b.c. 722) to the time of Ptolemy IV.
' Jost (Gesch. d.Judenthinus, i. 99) contents himself with speaking
of " die Liebe zu prophctischer Auffassiing der Vergangenheit, mit
moglichst genauen Zahlenagaben, befriedigt, die uns leider iiicht mehr
verstaitdlich crsclieinen."
'■ In Clem. Alex., Strom., i. 21.
THE SEVENTY WEEKS 291
(B.C. 222), which is seventy years too many. In other
words, he makes as nearly as possible the same mis-
calculations as the writer of Daniel. This seems to
show that there was some traditional error in the
current chronolog}^ ; and it cannot be overlooked that
in ancient days the means tor coming to accurate
chronological conclusion were exceedingly imperfect.
" Until the establishment of the Seleucid era (b.c. 312),
the Jew had no fixed era whatsoever " ; ^ and nothing
is less astonishing than that an apocalyptic writer of
the date of Epiphanes, basing his calculations on un-
certain data to give an allegoric interpretation to an
ancient prophecy, should have lacked the records which
would alone have enabled him to calculate with exact
precision."
And, for the rest, we must say with Grotius, *'Modiciint
ncc prcetor curat, nee propheta."
' Cornill, p. 14; Bevan, p. 54.
- Schiirer, Hist, of Jewish People, iii. 53, 54 (E. Tr.). This is also
the view of Graf, Noldeke, Cornill, and many others. In any case we
must not be misled into an impossible style of exegesis of which Bleek
sa3's that " bei ihr alles mOglich ist und alles fiir erlaubt gilt."
CHAPTER IV
INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCLUDING VISION
T
HE remaining section of the Book of Daniel forms
but one vision, of which this chapter is the Intro-
duction or Prologue.
Daniel is here spoken of in the third person.
It is dated in the third year of Cyrus (b.c. 535).^ We
have already been told that Daniel lived to see the first
year of Cyrus (i. 21). This verse, if accepted histori-
cally, would show that at any rate Daniel did not return
to Palestine with the exiles. Age, high rank, and
opportunities of usefulness in the Persian Court may
have combined to render his return undesirable for the
interests of his people. The date — the last given in
the life of the real or ideal Daniel — is perhaps here
mentioned to account for the allusions which follow
to the kingdom of Persia. But with the great and
moving fortunes of the Jews after the accession of
Cyrus, and even with the beginning of their new
national life in Jerusalem, the author is scarcely at all
concerned. He makes no mention of Zerubbabel the
prince, nor of Joshua the priest, nor of the decree of
' The LXX. date it in " the first year of Cyrus," perhaps an inten-
tional alteration (i. 2l). We see from Ezra, Nehemiali, and the latest
of the Minor Prophets that there was scarcely even an attempt to
restore the ruined walls of Jerusalem before b.c. 444.
292
INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCLUDING VISION 293
Cyrus, iior of the rebuilding of the Temple ; his whole
concern is with the petty wars and diplomacy of the
reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, of which an account is
given, so minute as either to furnish us with historical
materials unknown to any other historian, or else is
difficult to reconcile with the history of that king's reign
as it has been hitherto understood.
In this chapter, as in the two preceding, there are
great difficulties and uncertainties about the exact sig-
nificance of some of the verses, and textual emendations
have been suggested. The readers of the Expositor's
Bible would not, however, be interested in minute
and dreary philological disquisitions, which have not
the smallest moral significance, and lead to no certain
result. The difficulties affect points of no doctrinal
importance, and the greatest scholars have been unable
to arrive at any agreement respecting them. Such
difficulties will, therefore, merely be mentioned, and I
shall content myself with furnishing what appears to
be the best authenticated opinion.
The first and second verses are rendered partly by
Ewald and partly by other scholars, " Truth is the
revelation^ and distress is great; ^ therefore understand
thou the revelation^ since there is understanding of it
in the vision^ The admonition calls attention to the
importance of " the word," and the fact that reality lies
beneath its enigmatic and apocalyptic form.
Daniel had been mourning for three full weeks, -
' Lit. " great warfare."' It will be seen that the A.V. and R.V.
and other renderings vary widely from this ; but nothing very impor-
tant depends on the variations. Instead of taking the verbs as
imperatives addressed to the reader, Hitzig renders, " He heeded the
word, and gave heed to the vision."
■ Lit. " weeks of days " CGen. xli. i; Deut.xxi. 13: "years of days ").
294 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
during which he ate no dainty bread/ nor flesh, nor
wine, nor did he anoint himself with oil.- But in the
Passover month of Abib or Nisan, the first month of
the year, and on the twenty-fourth day of that month,^
he was seated on the bank of the great river, Hiddekel
or Tigris,'' when, lifting up his eyes, he saw a certain
man clothed in fine linen like a Jewish priest, and his
loins girded with gold of Uphaz.'' His body was like
chrysolite,'^ his face flashed like lightning, his eyes
were like torches of fire, his arms and feet gleamed
like polished brass,' and the sound of his words was
as the sound of a deep murmur.* Daniel had com-
panions with him ; ^ they did not see the vision, but
some supernatural terror fell upon them, and they fled
to hide themselves.^"
At this great spectacle his strength departed, and
' "Bread of desires" is the opposite of "bread of afiliction " in
Deut. xvi. 3. Comp. Gen. xxvii. 25 ; Isa. xxii. 13, etc.
^ Comp. Amos vi. 6 ; Ruth iii. 3 ; 2 Sam. xii. 20, xiv. 2.
^ He fasted from Abib 3 to 24. The festival of the New Moon
might prevent him from fasting on Abib i, 2.
* Hiddekel ("the rushing") occurs only in Gen. ii. 14. It is the
Assyrian idiglat.
* For the girdle see Ezek. xxiii. 15. Ewald (with the Vulg., Chald.,
and Syriac) regards Uphaz as a clerical error for Ophir (Psalm xlv. 9).
LXX., 'yiiixpi'S (Jer. x. 9, where alone it occurs). The LXX. omit it
here. Vulg., Auro obrizo.
* Heb., eben farshish (Exod. xxviii. 2) ; Vulg., crysolithiis ; R.V.
and A. v., "beryl" (Ezek. i. 16), Comp. Skr., tarisha, "the sea."
' Theodot., to. cTKiXr] ; LXX., 01 7r65ej (Rev. i. 15)— lit. "foot-hold";
Vulg., qiicv deorsum sititt usque ad pedes.
" This description of the vision follows Ezek. i. 16-24, ix. 2, and is
followed in Rev. i. 13-15. The "deep murmur" is referred to the
sound of the sea by St. John ; A.V., " the voice of a multitude " ; LXX.,
dhpv^os. ■ Comp. Isa. xiii. 4 ; Ezek. xliii. 2,
' Rashi guesses that they were Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
'" Comp. Acts ix. 7, xxii. 11.
INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCLUDING P'ISION 295
his brightness was changed to corruption ; ^ and when
the vision spoke he fell to the earth face downwards.
A hand touched him, and partly raised him to the
trembling support of his knees and the palms of his
hands,- and a voice said to him, " Daniel, thou greatly
beloved/ stand upright, and attend ; for I am sent to
thee." The seer was still trembling ; but the voice
bade him fear not, for his prayer had been heard,
and for that reason this message had been sent to him.
Gabriel's coming had, however, been delayed for three
weeks, by his having to withstand for twenty days the
prince of the kingdom of Persia.* The necessity of
continuing the struggle was only removed by the
arrival of Michael, one of the chief princes,*^ to help
him, so that Gabriel was no longer needed ° to resist
the kings of Persia.'^ The vision was for many days,^
and he had come to enable Daniel to understand it.
Once more Daniel was terrified, remained silent,
and fixed his eyes on the ground, until one like the
sons of men touched his lips, and then he spoke to
apologise for his timidity and faintheartedness.
' Comp. Hab. iii. 16 ; Dan. viii. 18.
- Lit. "shook" or "caused me to tremble upon my knees and the
palms of my hand."
* X. II. LXX., dvOpuTTOs iXeeivb^ el; Tert., De Jejiiii., 7, "homo es
miserabilis " (sc, " jejunando '").
* The protecting genius of Persia (Isa. xxiv. 21; Psalm Ixxxii.;
Ecclus. xvii. 17).
* Michael, " who is like God " (Jude 9 ; Rev. xii. 7).
* Heb., nothaiti. "I came off victorious," or "obtained the pre-
cedence " (Luther, Gesenius, etc.) ; " I was delayed " (Hitzig) ; " I was
superfluous" (Ewald) ; "Was left over" (ZOckler) ; "I remained"
(A.V.) ; " Was not needed " (R.V. marg.). The LXX. and Theodoret
seem to follow another text.
" LXX., " with the army of the king of the Persians."
" Again the text and renderinsr are uncertain.
2c,r, THE BOOK OF DANIEL
A third time the vision touched, strengthened, blessed
him, and bade him be strong. " Knowest thou," the
angel asked, " why I am come to thee ? I must
return to fight against the Prince of Persia, and while
I am gone the Prince of Greece [Javan] will come. I
will, however, tell thee what is announced in the writing
of truth, the book of the decrees of heaven, though
there is no one to help me against these hostile princes
of Persia and Javan, except Michael your prince."
The difficulties of the chapter are, as we have said,
of a kind that the expositor cannot easily remove. I
have given what appears to be the general sense. The
questions which the vision raises bear on matters of
angelology, as to which all is purposely left vague and
indeterminate, or which lie in a sphere wholly beyond
our cognisance.
It may first be asked whether the splendid angel
of the opening vision is also the being in the similitude
of a man who thrice touches, encourages, and strengthens
Daniel. It is perhaps simplest to suppose that this is
the case/ and that the Great Prince tones down his
overpowering glory to more familiar human semblance
in order to dispel the terrors of the seer.
The general conception of the archangels as princes
of the nations, and as contending with each other,
belongs to the later developments of Hebrew opinion on
such subjects.^ Some have supposed that the " princes "
' So Hitzig and Ewald. The view that they are distinct persons
is taken by ZOckler, Von Lengerke, etc. Other guesses are that the
"man clothed in linen " is the angel who called Gabriel (viii. i6); or
Michael ; or " the angel of the Covenant " (Vitringa) ; or Christ ; or
"he who letteth" (6 Karixij^f, 2 Thess. ii. 7), whom Zflckler takes to
be " the good principle of the world-power."
- Thus in the LXX. (Dent, xxxii. 8) we read of angels of the nations,
INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCLUDING VISION 297
of Persia and Javan to whom Gabriel and Michael
are opposed are, not good angels, but demonic powers,
— "the world-rulers of this darkness" — subordinate to
the evil spirit whom St. Paul does not hesitate to
call " the god of this world," and " the prince of the
powers of the air." This is how they account for this
" war in heaven," so that " the dragon and his angels "
fight against " Michael and his angels." Be that as
it may, this mode of presenting the guardians of the
destinies of nations is one respecting which we have
no further gleams of revelation to help us.
Ewald regards the two last verses of the chapter as
a sort of soliloquy of the angel Gabriel with himself.
He is pressed for time. His coming has already been
delayed b}^ the opposition of the guardian-power of
the destinies of Persia. If Michael, the great arch-
angel of the Hebrews, had not come to his aid, and (so
to speak) for a time relieved guard, he would have
been unable to come. But even the respite leaves him
anxious. He seems to feel it almost necessary that he
should at once return to contend against the Prince of
Persia, and against a new adversary, the Prince of
Javan, who is on his way to do mischief. Yet on the
whole he will stay and enlighten Daniel before he takes
his flight, although there is no one but Michael who
aids him against these menacing princes. It is difficult
to know whether this is meant to be ideal or real —
whether it represents a struggle of angels against
demons, or is merely meant for a sort of parable which
represents the to-and-fro conflicting impulses which
sway the destinies of earthly kingdoms. In any case
See too Isa. xlvi. 2 ; Jer. xlvi. 25. Comp. Baruch iv. 7 ; Ecclus. xvii. 17 ;
Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 66.
298 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
the representation is too unique and too remote from
earth to enable us to understand its spiritual meaning,
beyond the bare indication that God sitteth above the
water-floods and God remaineth a king for ever. It is
another way of showing us that the heathen rage, and
the people imagine a vain thing ; that the kings of the
earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel to-
gether ; but that they can only accomplish what God's
hand and God's counsel have predetermined to be done ;
and that when they attempt to overthrow the destinies
which God has foreordained, " He that sitteth in the
heavens shall laugh them to scorn, the Lord shall have
them in derision." These, apart from all complications
or developments of angelology or demonology, are the
continuous lesson of the Word of God, and are con-
firmed by all that we decipher of His providence in
His ways of dealing with nations and with men,
CHAPTER V
AN ENIGMATIC PROPHECY PASSING INTO DETAILS
OF THE REIGN OF ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES
"Pone haec dici de Antiocho, quid nocet religion! nostrse?" —
HiERON. ed. Vallars, v. 722.
IF this chapter were indeed the utterance of a prophet
in the Babylonian Exile, nearly four hundred years
before the events — events of which many are of small
comparative importance in the world's history — which
are here so enigmatically and yet so minutely depicted,
the revelation would be the most unique and per-
plexing in the whole Scriptures. It would represent a
sudden and total departure from every method of God's
providence and of God's manifestation of His will to the
minds of the prophets. It would stand absolutely and
abnormally alone as an abandonment of the limitations
of all else which has ever been foretold. And it would
then be still more surprising that such a reversal of the
entire economy of prophecy should not only be so
widely separated in tone from the high moral and
spiritual lessons which it was the special glory of
prophecy to inculcate, but should come to us entirely
devoid of those decisive credentials which could alone
suffice to command our conviction of its genuineness
and authenticity. " We find in this chapter," says Mr.
Bevan, " a complete survey of the history from the
beginning of the Persian period down to the time of
299
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
the author. Here, even more than hi the earher vision,
we are able to perceive how the account gradually
becomes more definite as it approaches the latter part
of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, and how it then
passes suddenly from the domain of historical facts to
that of ideal expectations." ^ In recent days, when
the force of truth has compelled so many earnest
and honest thinkers to the acceptance of historic
and literary criticism, the few scholars who are still
able to maintain the traditional views about the Book
of Daniel find themselves driven, like Zockler and
others, to admit that even if the Book of Daniel as a
whole can be regarded as the production of the exiled
seer five and a half centuries before Christ, 3^et in this
chapter at any rate there must be large interpolations.^
There is here an unfortunate division of the chapters.
The first verse of chap. xi. clearly belongs to the last
verses of chap. x. It seems to furnish the reason
why Gabriel could rely on the help of Michael, and
therefore may delay for a few moments his return
to the scene of conflict with the Prince of Persia
and the coming King of Javan. Michael will for that
brief period undertake the sole responsibility of main-
taining the struggle, because Gabriel has put him
under a direct obligation by special assistance which he
rendered to him only a little while previously in the
first year of the Median Darius.^ Now, therefore, Gabriel,
though in haste, will announce to Daniel the truth.
The announcement occupies five sections.
First Section (xi. 2-9). — Events from the rise of
' Daniel, p. 162.
* On this chapter see Smend, Zeitschr. fi'ir Alttesf. Wissettschaft,
V. 241.
^ Ewald, Prophets, v. 293 (E. Tr.).
FIRST SECTION
301
Alexander the Great (b.c 336) to the death of Seleucus
Nicator (b.c. 280). There are to be three kings of
Persia after Cyrus (who is then reigning), of whom the
third is to be the richest ; ^ and " when he is waxed
strong through his riches, he shall stir up the all '^
against the realm of Javan."
There were of course many more than four kings of
Persia
VIZ.
B.C.
Cyrus
536
Cambyses ......
529
Pseudo-Smerdis
522
Darius Hystaspis .....
521
Xerxes I. ......
485
Artaxerxes I. (Longimanus) .
464
Xerxes II
425
Sogdianus
425
Darius Nothus .....
424
Artaxerxes II. (Mnemon)
405
Artaxerxes III.
359
Darius Codomannus ....
336
But probably the writer had no historic sources -to
which to refer, and only four Persian kings are pro-
minent in Scripture — Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, and
Artaxerxes. Darius Codomannus is indeed mentioned
in Neh. xii. 22, but might have easily been over-
looked, and even confounded with another Darius in
uncritical and unhistorical times. The rich fourth
king who " stirs up the all against the realm of Grecia"
' Doubtless the three mentioned in Ezra iv. 5-7 : Ahasuerus
(Xerxes), Artaxerxes, and Darius.
- Heb., Hakkol — lit. " the all." There were probably Jews in his
rmy (^Jos. c. Ap., I. 22 : comp. Herod., vii. 89).
' ZCckler met the difficulty by calling the number four " symbolic,"
a method as easy as it is profoundly unsatisfactory.
302 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
might be meant for Artaxerxes 1., but more probably
refers to Xerxes (Achashverosh, or Ahasuerus), and his
immense and ostentatious invasion of Greece (b.c. 480).
His enormous wealth is dwelt upon by Herodotus.^
Ver. 3 (b.c. 336-323). — Then shall rise a mighty
king (Alexander the Great), and shall rule with great
dominion, and do according to his will. " Fortunam
solus omnium mortalium in potestate habuit," says his
historian, Quintus Curtius.^
Ver. 4 (b.c. 323). — But when he is at the apparent
zenith of his strength his kingdom shall be broken,
and shall not descend to any of his posterity,^ but
(b.c. 323-301) shall be for others, and shall ultimately
(after the Battle of Ipsus, b.c. 301) be divided towards
the four winds of heaven, into the kingdoms of
Cassander (Greece and Macedonia), Ptolemy (Egypt,
Coele-Syria, and Palestine), Lysimachus (Asia Minor),
and Seleucus (Upper Asia),
Ver. 5. — Of these four kingdoms and their kings
the vision is only concerned with two — the kings of
the South ^ (/>., the Lagidae, or Egyptian Ptolemies,
who sprang from Ptolemy Lagos), and the kings of
the North {i.e., the Antiochian Seleucidae). They alone
are singled out because the Holy Land became a
sphere of contentions between these rival dynasties.^
' Herod., iii. 96, iv. 27-29.
■ Q. Curt., X. V. 35.
•* See Grote, xii. 133. Alexander had a natural son, Herakles, and
a posthumous son, Alexander, by Roxana. Both were murdered —
the former by Polysperchon. See Diod. Sic, xix. 105, xx. 28;
Pausan., ix. 7; Justin, xv. 2; Appian, Syr, c. 51.
* The King of the Negeb (comp. Isa. xxx. 6, 7). LXX., Egypt.
Ptolemy assumed the crown about b.c. 304.
'^ See Stade, Gesch., ii. 276. Seleucus Nicator was deemed so im-
portant as to give his name to the Seleucid sera (l Mace. i. 10,
P-IRST SECTION
B.C. ^oG. — The King of the South (Ptolemy Soter,
son of Lagos) shall be strong, and shall ultimately
assume the title of Ptolemy I., King of Egypt.
But one of his princes or generals (Seleucus Nicator)
shall be stronger/ and, asserting his independence,
shall establish a great dominion over Northern Syria
and Babylonia.
Ver. 6 (b.c. 250). — The vision then passes over the
reign of Antiochus II. (Soter), and proceeds to say
that " at the end of years " {i.e., some half-century later,
B.C. 250) the kings of the North and South should form
a matrimonial alliance. The daughter of the King of
the South — the Egyptian Princess Berenice, daughter
of Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus), should come to the King
of the North (Antiochus Theos) to make an agree-
ment. This agreement (marg., *' equitable conditions ")
was that Antiochus Theos should divorce his wife
and half-sister Laodice, and disinherit her children,
and bequeath the throne to any future child of Berenice,
who would thus unite the empires of the Ptolemies
and the Seleucidse.' Berenice took with her so vast
a dowry that she was called "the dowry-bringer "
(<f)€pv6(f)opo<i).^ Antiochus himself accompanied her as
far as Pelusium (b.c. 247). But the compact ended in
nothing but calamity. For, two years after, Ptolemy II.
died, leaving an infant child by Berenice. But Berenice
' Diod. Sic, xix. 55-58 ; Appian, Syf., c. 52. He ruled from Phrygia
to the Indus, and was the most powerful of the Diadochi. The word
one is not expressed in the Hebrew : " but as for one of his captains.'
There may be some corruption of the text. Seleucus can scarcely
be regarded as a vassal of Ptolemy, but of Alexander.
- Appian, Sy;-., c. 55 ; Polysenus, viii. 50 ; Justin, xxvii. i. See Herz-
berg, Gescli. v. Hellas u. Rom., i. 576. Dates are not certain,
er., ad loc. (Dan. xi. 6).
304 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
did ^^not retain the strength of her arm^'^ since tlie military
force which accompanied her proved powerless for her
protection ; nor did Ptolemy II. abide, nor any sup-
port which he could render. On the contrar}', there was
overwhelming disaster. Berenice's escort, her father,
her husband, all perished, and she herself and her infant
child were murdered by her rival, Laodice (b.c. 246),
in the sanctuary of Daphne, whither she had fled for
refuge.
Ver. 7 (b.c. 285-247). — But the murder of Berenice
shall be well avenged. For " out of a shoot from her
roots " stood up one in his office, even her brother
Ptolemy III. (Euergetes), who, unlike the effeminate
Ptolemy II., did not entrust his wars to his generals,
but came himself to his arm3^ He shall completely
conquer the King of the North (Seleucus II., Kallinikos,
son of Antiochus Theos and Laodice), shall seize his
fortress (Seleucia, the port of Antioch).''
Ver. 8 (b.c. 247). — In thiscampaign Ptolemy Euergetes,
who earned the title of " Benefactor " by this vigorous
invasion, shall not only win immense booty — four
thousand talents of gold and many jewels, and forty
thousand talents of silver — but shall also carry back
with him to Egypt the two thousand five hundred
molten images,^ and idolatrous vessels, which, two
hundred and eighty years before (b.c. 527), Cambyses
had carried away from Egypt. ^
' The rendering is much disputed, and some versions, punctuating
differently, have, " his seed {i.e., his daughter] shall not stand." Every
clause of the passage has received varying interpretations.
^ Polyb., v. 58.
^ Heb., nasik'mi; LXX., ra, x^^^^"^^'! Vulg., sciilptilia.
' Herodotus (iii. 47) says that he ordered the images to be burnt.
On the Marmor Adulitanum, Ptolemy Euergetes boasted that he
had united Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Persia, Susiana, Media, and all
SECOND SECTION 305
After this success he will, for some years, refrain
from attacking the Seleucid kings. ^
Ver. 9 (b.c. 240). — Seleucus Kallinikos makes an
attempt to avenge the shame and loss of the invasion
of Syria by invading Egypt, but he returns to his
own land totally foiled and defeated, for his fleet was
destroyed by a storm. ^
Second Section (vv. 10-19). — Events from the death
of Ptolemy Euergetes (b.c. 247) to the death of Anti-
ochus III. (the Great, b.c. 175). In the following
verses, as Behrmann observes, there is a sort of dance
of shadows, only fully intelligible to the initiated.
Ver. 10. — The sons of Seleucus Kallinikos were
Seleucus III. (Keraunos, b.c 227-224) and Antiochus
the Great (b.c 224-187). Keraunos only reigned two
years, and in b.c 224 his brother Antiochus III.
succeeded him. Both kings assembled immense forces
to avenge the insult of the Egyptian invasion, the
defeat of their father, and the retention of their port
and fortress of Seleucia. It was only sixteeen miles
from Antioch, and being still garrisoned by Egyp-
tians, constituted a standing danger and insult to their
capital city.
Ver. 1 1 . — After twenty-seven years the port of
Seleucia is wrested from the Egyptians by Antiochus
the Great, and he so completely reverses the former
countries as far as Bactria under his rule. The inscription was seen
at Adules by Cosmas Indicopleustes, and recorded by him (Wolf u.
Buttmann, Museum, u. 162).
' R.V. marg., " He shall continue more years than the King of
the North." Ptolemy Euergetes died B.C. 247 ; Seleucus Kallinikos,
B.C. 225. It must be borne in mind that in almost every clause the
readings, renderings, and interpolations vary. I give what seem to
be the best attested and the most probable.
- Justin, xxvii. 2.
20
3o6 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
successes of the King of the South as to conquer Syria
as far as Gaza.
Ver. 12 (B.C. 217). — But at last the young Egyptian
King, Ptolemy IV. (Philopator), is roused from his
dissipation and eflfcminacy, advances to Raphia (south-
west of Gaza) with a great army of twenty thousand
foot, five thousand horse, and seventy-three elephants,
and there, to his own immense self-exaltation, he inflicts
a severe defeat on Antiochus, and " casis doivn tens of
thousands."^ Yet the victory is illusive, although it
enables Ptolemy to annex Palestine to Egypt. For
Ptolemy ^^ shall not show himself strong" but shall, by
his supineness, and by making a speedy peace, throw
away all the fruits of his victory, while he returns
to his past dissipation (b.c. 217-204).^
Ver. 13. — Twelve years later (b.c. 205) Ptolemy
Philopator died, leaving an infant son, Ptolemy Epi-
phanes. Antiochus, smarting from his defeat at Raphia,
again assembled an army which was still greater than
before (b.c. 203), and much war-material. In the
intervening 3'ears he had won great victories in the
East as far as India.
Ver. 14. — Antiochus shall be aided b}' the fact that
many — including his ally Philip, King of Macedon,
and various rebel-subjects of Ptolemy Epiphanes —
stood up against the King of Egypt and wrested Phoe-
nicia and Southern Syria from him. The Syrians were
further strengthened by the assistance of the " children
of the violent " among the Jews, " who shall lift them-
' See 3 Mace. i. 2-8; Jos., B.J., IV. xi. 5. The Selcucid army lost
ten thousand foot, three hundred horse, five elephants, and more than
four thousand prisoners (Polyb., v. 86).
^ Justin says (xxx. i) : "Spoliasset regem Antiochum si fortunam
virtute juvisset."
ANTIOCHUS THE GREAT 307
selves up to fulfil the vision of the oracle; ^ but they shall
fall." We read in Josephus that many of the Jews
helped Antiochus;^ but the allusion to "the vision" is
entirely obscure. Ewald supposes a reference to some
prophec}'- no longer extant. Dr. Joel thinks that the
Hellenising Jews may have referred to Isa. xix. in favour
of the plans of Antiochus against Egypt.
Vv, 15, 16. — But however much any of the Jews
may have helped Antiochus under the hope of ulti-
mately regaining their independence, their hopes were
frustrated. The Syrian King came, besieged, and took
a well-fenced city — perhaps an allusion to the fact that
he wrested Sidon from the Egyptians. After his great
victory over the Egyptian general Scopas at Mount
Panium (b.c. 198), the routed Egyptian forces, to the
number of ten thousand, flung themselves into that
city.^ This campaign ruined the interests of Egypt in
Palestine, " the glorious land." * Palestine now passed
to Antiochus, who took possession " with destruction in
his hand"
Ver. 17 (b.c. 198-195). — After this there shall again
be an attempt at " equitable negotiations " ; by which,
however, Antiochus hoped to get final possession of
Egypt and destroy it. He arranged a marriage between
" a daughter of women " — his daughter Cleopatra — and
Ptolemy Epiphanes. But this attempt also entirely
failed.
Ver. 18 (b.c. 190). — Antiochus therefore " sets his face
' Chdson, "the vision." Gratz renders it, "to cause the Law to
totter"; but this cannot be right.
''■ E.g., Joseph, and his son Hyrcanus.
^ Polyb., xxviii. I; Liv., xxxiii. 19; Jos., Antt., XII. iii. 4. See
St. Jerome, ad loc.
^ Vulg., terra inclyta ; but in viii. 9, fortitiido.
3o8 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
in another dircctioti^^ and tries to conquer the islands
and coasts of Asia Minor. But a captain — the Roman
general, Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus — puts an
end to the insolent scorn with which he had spoken of
the Romans, and pays him back with equal scorn,^
utterly defeating him in the great Battle of Magnesia
(b.c. 190), and forcing him to ignominious terms.
Ver. 19 (b.c. 175). — Antiochus next turns his atten-
tion ("sets his /ace") to strengthen the fortresses of his
own land in the east and west ; but making an attempt
to recruit his dissipated wealth by the plunder of the
Temple of Belus in Elymais, " stmnbles and falls, and is
not found."
Third Section (vv. 20-27). — Events under Seleucus
Philopator down to the first attempts of Antiochus
Epiphanes against Egypt (b.c. 170).
Ver. 20. — Seleucus Philopator (b.c 187-176) had a
character the reverse of his father's. He was no rest-
less seeker for glory, but desired wealth and quietness.^
Among the Jews, however, he had a very evil repu-
tation, for he sent an exactor — a mere tax-collector,
Heliodorus — " to pass through the glory of the kingdom" ^
He only reigned twelve years, and then was " broken "
— i.e., murdered by Heliodorus, neither in anger nor in
battle, but by poison administered by this " tax-collec-
tor." The versions all vary, but I feel little doubt that
Dr. Joel is right when he sees in the curious phrase
nogesh heder malkooth, "one that shall cause a raiser
' In the choice of tlie Hebrew words qats'm cherpatlio lo, Dr. Jogl
suspects a sort of anagram of Cornelius Scipio, like the airb ixiXiroi
for Ptolemj', and the Xov^Upai for Arsionc in Lj'cophron ; but the real
meaning and rendering of the verse are highly uncertain.
'^ Liv., xii. 19: " Otiosum, nullisque admodum rebus gestis nobili-
tatum."
^ 2 Mace. iii. 7 ff. The reading and rendering are verj' uncertain.
ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES 309
of taxes to pass over the kingdom" — of which neither
Theodotion nor the Vulgate can make anything — a
cryptographic allusion to the name Heliodorus ; ^ and
possibly the predicted fate may (by a change of subject)
also refer to the fact that Heliodorus was checked, not
by force, but by the vision in the Temple (2 Mace.
V. 18, iii. 24-29). We find from 2 Mace. iv. i that
Simeon, the governor of the Temple, charged Onias
with a trick to terrify Heliodorus. This is a very
probable view of what occurred.^
Ver. 21. — Seleucus Philopator died b.c. 175 without
an heir. This made room for a contemptible person,
a reprobate, who had no real claim to royal dignity,^
being only a younger son of Antiochus the Great. He
came by surprise, " in time of security ^^ and obtained
the kingdom by flatteries.^
Ver. 22. — Yet ^^ the overflowing wiyigs of Egypt^' (or
'* the arms of a flood ") " wax swept away before him
and broken ; yea, and even a covenanted or allied prince.'"
Some explain this of his nephew Ptolemy Philometor,
others of Onias III., "the prince of the covenant" —
i.e., the princely high priest, whom Antiochus displaced
in favour of his brother, the apostate Joshua, who
Graecised his name into Jason, as his brother Onias
did in calling himself Menelaus.^
Ver. 23. — This mean king should prosper by deceit
' Joel, Notisen, p. 16.
* See Jost, i. no.
* Vulg., vilissimus et indigmis decore regio; R.V., "to whom they
had not given the honour of a kingdom " ; Ewald, " upon him shall
not be set the splendour of a kingdom." Dr, Joel sees in nibzeh
a. contemptuous paronomasia on "Epiphancs" {Nottzcii, p. 17).
* Dan. viii, 22; 2 Mace. v. 25.
* Jos., Antt., XII. V. I.
310 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
which he practised on all connected with him;^ and
though at first he had but few adherents, he should
creep into power.
Ver. 24. — "/« time of security shall he come, even upon
the fattest places of the province.^' By this may be
meant his invasions of Galilee and Lower Egypt. Acting
unlike any of his royal predecessors, he shall lavishly
scatter his gains and his booty among needy followers,^
and shall plot to seize Pelusium, Naucratis, Alexandria,
and other strongholds of Egypt for a time.
Ver. 25. — After this (b.c. 171) he shall, with a ^^ great
army" seriously undertake his first invasion of Egypt,
and shall be met by his nephew Ptolemy Philometor
with another immense army. In spite of this, the
young Egyptian King shall fail through the treachery
of his own courtiers. He shall be outwitted and
treacherously undermined by his uncle Antiochus.
Yes 1 even while his army is fighting, and many are
being slain, the very men who " eat of his dainties" even
his favourite and trusted courtiers Eulaeus and Lenaeus,
will be devising his ruin, and his army shall be swept
away.
Vv. 26, 27 (b.c. 174). — The Syrians and the Egyptian
King, nephew and uncle, shall in nominal amity sit at
one banquet, eating from one table ; ^ but all the while
they will be distrustfully plotting against each other
and ^'speaking lies" to each other. Antiochus will
pretend to ally himself with the young Philometor
against his brother Ptolemy Euergetes II. — generally
' Jerome, amiciti'as simulans.
' See I Mace. iii. 30; i Mace. i. 19; Polyb., xxvii. 17; Diod. Sic,
x.Kx. 22. What his unking!}^ stratacjcms were we do not know.
' Liv., xliv. 19 : " Antiochus per houcstam speciem majoris Ptolemaei
reducendi in regnum," etc.
FOURTH SECTION ^W
known by his derisive nickname as Ptolemy Physkon ^
— whom after eleven months the Alexandrians had
proclaimed king. But all these plots and counter-plots
should be of none effect, for the end was not yet.
Fourth Section (vv. 28-35). — Events between the
first attack of Antiochus on Jerusalem (b.c. 170) and
his plunder of the Temple to the first revolt of the
Maccabees (b.c. 167).
Ver. 28 (b.c. 168). — Returning from Egypt with great
plunder, Antiochus shall set himself against the Holy
Covenant. He put down the usurping high priest Jason,
who, with much slaughter, had driven out his rival
usurper and brother, Menelaus. He massacred many
Jews, and returned to Antioch enriched with golden
vessels seized from the Temple."
Ver. 29. — In b.c. 168 Antiochus again invaded Egypt,
but with none of the former splendid results. For
Ptolem}^ Philometor and Physkon had joined in sending
an embassy to Rome to ask for help and protection.
In consequence of this, " ships from Kittim " ^ — namely,
the Roman fleet — came against him, bringing the
Roman commissioner, Gaius Popilius Laenas. When
Popilius met Antiochus, the king put out his hand to
embrace him ; but the Roman merely held out his
tablets, and bade Antiochus read the Roman demand
that he and his army should at once evacuate Egypt.
" I will consult my friends on the subject," said
Antiochus. Popilius, with infinite haughtiness and
' Or " Paunch." He was so called from his corpulence. Comp. the
name Mirabeau, Toniiean.
^ 2 Mace. V. 5-21 ; i Mace. i. 30-24.
^ The LXX. render this ij^ovai "PufutToi. Comp. Numb. xxiv. 24 ;
Jerome, Tricres ct Roiitani. On "Chittim" (Gen. x. 4) see Jos.,
Ant/., I. vi. I.
312 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
audacit}', simply drew a circle in the sand with his
vine-stick round the spot on which the king stood, and
said, " You must decide before you step out of that
circle." Antiochus stood amazed and humiliated ; but
seeing that there was no help for it, promised in despair
to do all that the Romans demanded/
Ver. 30. — Returning from Egypt in an indignant frame
of mind, he turned his exasperation against the Jews
and the Holy Covenant, especially extending his ap-
proval to those who apostatised from it.
Ver. 31. — Then (b.c. 168) shall come the climax of
horror. Antiochus shall send troops to the Holy Land,
who shall desecrate the sanctuary and fortress of the
Temple, and abolish the daily sacrifice (Kisleu 15), and
set up the abomination that maketh desolate.-
Ver. 32. — To carry out these ends the better, and with
the express purpose of putting an end to the Jewish
religion, he shall pervert or " make profane " by
flatteries the renegades who are ready to apostatise
from the faith of their fathers. But there shall be
a faithful remnant who will bravely resist him to the
uttermost. " The people ivho knoiv their God will be
valiant, and do great deeds."
Ver. 33. — To keep alive the national faith "wise
teachers of the people shall instruct many" and will draw
upon their own heads the fury of persecution, so that
many shall fall by sword, and by flame, and by captivity,
and by spoliation for many days.
' Polyb., xxix. II ; Appian, Syr., 66; Liv., xlv. 12; Veil. Paterc,
i. 10. According to Polybius (xxxi. 5), Epiphanes, by his crafty dis-
simulation, afterwards completely hoodwinked the ambassador Tiberius
Gracchus.
■■' 2 Mace, vi. 2. Our best available historical comments on this
chapter are to be found in the two books of Maccabees.
FIFTH SECTION 313
Ver. 34. — But in the midst of this fierce onslaught
of cruelty they shall be " liolpen with a little helpy
There shall arise the sect of the Ckasidim^ ox " the
Pious," bound together by Tugendbiind to maintain the
Laws which Israel received from Moses of old.* These
good and faithful champions of a righteous cause will
indeed be weakened by the false adherence of waverers
and flatterers.
Ver. 35. — To purge the party from such spies and
Laodiceans, the teachers, like the aged priest Mattathias
at Modin, and the aged scribe Eleazar, will have to
brave even martyrdom itself till the time of the end.
Fifth Section (vv. 36-45,8.0. 147-164). — Events from
the beginning of the Maccabean rising to the death of
Antiochus Epiphanes.
Ver. 36. — Antiochus will grow more arbitrary, more
insolent, more blasphemous, from day to day, calling
himself " God " (Theos) on his coins, and requiring all
his subjects to be of his religion,'^ and so even more
kindling against himself the wrath of the God of gods
by his monstrous utterances, until the final doom has
fallen.
Ver. ■^'j. — He will, in fact, make himself his own god,
paying no regard (by comparison) to his national or
local god, the Olympian Zeus, nor to the Syrian deity,
Tammuz-Adonis, "the desire of women." ^
' I Mace. ii. 42, iii. 11, iv. 14, vii. 13 ; 2 Mace. xiv. 6.
^ Diod. Sic, xxxi. i; i Mace. i. 43. Polybius (xxxi. 4) says "he
committed sacrilege in most of the temples " (ra TrXetora tCov iepQv).
^ Jahn (Heb. Com., § xcii.) sees in the words " neither shall he
regard the desire of women " an allusion to his exclusion of women
from the festival at Daphne. Some explain the passage by his
robbery of the Temple of Artemis or Aphrodite in Elymais (Polyb.,
xxxi. II ; Appian, Syr., 66; i Mace. vi. 1-4; 2 Mace. ix. 2). All is
vague and uncertain.
314 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
"Tammuz came next behind,
Whose j'early wound in Lebanon allured
The Sj'rian damsels to lament his fate
In amorous ditties all a summer day.
While smooth Adonis from his native rock
Ran purple to the sea — supposed with blood
Of Tammuz yearly wounded. The love tale
Infected Zion's daughters with like heat."
Ver. 38. — The only God to whom he shall pay marked
respect shall be the Roman Jupiter, the god of the
Capitol. To this god, to Jupiter Capitolinus, not to
his own Zeus Olympios, the god of his Greek fathers,
he shall erect a temple in his capital city of Antioch,
and adorn it with gold and silver and precious stones.^
Ver. 39. — '* Ajid he shall deal with the strongest for-
tresses by the help of a strange god"^ — namely, the
Capitoline Jupiter (Zeus Polieus) — and shall crowd
the strongholds of Judaea with heathen colonists who
worship the Tyrian Hercules (Melkart) and other
idols ; and to these heathen he shall give wealth and
power,
Ver. 40. — But his evil career shall be cut short.
Egypt, under the now-allied brothers Philometor and
. Physkon, shall unite to thrust at him. Antiochus will
advance against them like a whirlwind, with many
chariots and horsemen, and with the aid of a fleet.
Vv. 41-45. — In the course of his march he shall pass
' Polyb., xxvi. 10; 2 Mace. vi. 2; Liv., xii. 20. The Hebrew £/oaA
Maussim is understood by the LXX., Theodotion, the Vulgate, and
Luther to be a god called Mauzzim (MawfeZ/a). See Herzog, Real-
Encycl., s.v. " Meussin." Cicero (c. Verr., vii. 72) calls the Capitol arx
omm'itm nationuni. The reader must judge for himself as to the
validity of the remark of Pusej' (p. 92), that "all this is alien from
the character of Antiochus."
- R. V. The translation is difticult and uncertain.
ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES 315
through Palestine, ^' the glorious land^^^^ with disastrous
injury ; but Eclom, Moab, and the bloom of the kingdom
of Ammon shall escape his hand. Egypt, however,
shall not escape. By the aid of the Libyans and
Ethiopians who are in his train he shall plunder Egypt
of its treasures.^
How far these events correspond to historic realities
is uncertain. Jerome says that Antiochus invaded
Eg3'pt a third time in B.C. 165, the eleventh year of his
reign ; but there are no historic traces of such an
invasion, and most certainly Antiochus towards the
close of his reign, instead of being enriched with vast
Egyptian spoils, was struggling with chronic lack of
means. Some therefore suppose that the writer com-
posed and published his enigmatic sketch of these
events before the close of the reign of Antiochus, and
that he is here passing from contemporary fact into a
region of ideal anticipations which were never actually
fulfilled.
Ver. 43 (b.c. 165). — In the midst of this devastating
invasion of Egypt, Antiochus shall be troubled with
disquieting rumours of troubles in Palestine and other
realms of his kingdom. He will set out with utter fury
to subjugate and to destroy, determining above all to
suppress the heroic Maccabean revolt which had in-
flicted such humiliating disasters upon his generals,
Seron, Apollonius, and Lysias.^
' The LXX. here render this expression (which puzzled them, and
which they omit in vv. 16, 41) by OiXTjcns. Theodot., T7]v yrjv toO
'SiajSaelfi.
^ Ewald takes these for metaphoric designations of the Hellenising
Jews. Some {e.g., ZOckler) understand these verses as a recapitula-
tion of the exploits of Antiochus. The whole clause is surrounded by
historic uncertainties.
^ The origin of the name Maccabcc still remains uncertain. Some
3i6 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Ver. 45 (b.c. 164). — He shall indeed advance so far
as to pitch his palatial tent " between the sea and the
mountain of the High Glory" ; but he will come to a
disastrous and an unassisted end.-
These latter events either do not correspond with the
actual history, or cannot be verified. So far as we
know Antiochus did not invade Egypt at all after
B.C. 168. Still less did he advance from Egypt, or
pitch his tent anywhere near Mount Zion. Nor did he
die in Palestine, but in Persia (e.g. 165). The writer,
indeed, strong in faith, anticipated, and rightly, that
Antiochus would come to an ignominious and a sudden
end — God shooting at him with a swift arrow, so that
he should be w^ounded. But all accurate details seem
suddenly to stop short with the doings in the fourth
section, w^hich may refer to the strange conduct of
Antiochus in his great festival in honour of Jupiter at
Daphne. Had the writer published his book after this
date, he could not surely have failed to speak wdth
triumphant gratitude and exultation of the heroic stand
made by Judas Maccabaeus and the splendid victories
make it stand for the initials of the Hebrew words, " Who among the
gods is Hke Jehovah?" in Exod. xv. ii; or of Mattathias Kohen
(priest), Ben-Johanan {Biesenthal). Others make it mean "the
Hammerer" (comp. Charles Martet). See Jost, i. ii6; Prideaux,
ii. 199 (so Grotius, and Buxtorf, De Abbreviaturis).
' Vulg., Aphadno. The LXX. omit it. Theodot., Apadano ;
Symm., "his stable."
- Porphyry says that " he pitched his tent in a place called
Apedno, between the Tigris and Euphrates " ; but even if these
rivers should be called seas, they have nothing to do with the Holy
Mountain. Apedno seems to be a mere guess from the word pSN,
"palace" or "tent," in this verse. See Jer. xliii. lo (Targum).
Roland, however, quotes Procopius (JDe adif. Justiiiiani, ii. 4) as
authority for a place called Apadnas, near Amida, on the Tigris. See
Pusey, p. 39.
ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES 317
which restored hope and glory to the Holy Land. I
therefore regard these verses as a description rather of
ideal expectation than of historic facts.
We find notices of Antiochus in the Books of Mac-
cabees, in Josephus, in St. Jerome's Commentary on
Daniel, and in Appian's Syn'aca. We should know
more of him and be better able to explain some of the
allusions in this chapter if the writings of the secular
historians had not come down to us in so fragmentary
a condition. The relevant portions of Callinicus Suto-
ricus, Diodorus Siculus, Polybius, Posidonius, Claudius,
Theon, Andronicus, Alypius, and others are all lost —
except a few fragments which we have at second or
third hand. Porphyry introduced quotations from these
authors into the twelfth book of his Arguments against
the Christians; but we only know his book from Jerome's
ex-pa)ie quotations. Other Christian treatises, written
in answer to Porphyry by Apollinaris, Eusebius, and
Methodius, are only preserved in a few sentences by
Nicetas and John of Damascus. The loss of Porphyry
and Apollinarius is especially to be regretted. Jerome
says that it was the extraordinarily minute correspond-
ence of this chapter of Daniel with the history of
Antiochus Epiphanes that led Porphyry to the convic-
tion that it only contained vaticinia ex eventu}
Antiochus died at Tabae in Paratacaene on the fron-
tiers of Persia and Babylonia about b.c. 163. The
Jewish account of his remorseful deathbed may be read
in I Mace. vi. 1-16 : " He laid him down upon his
bed, and fell sick for grief; and there he continued
many days, for his grief was ever more and more ; and
he made account that he should die." He left a son,
' Jahn, § xcv
3i8 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
Antiochus Eupator, aged nine, under the charge of
his flatterer and foster-brother Phihp.^ RecalHng the
wrongs he had inflicted on Judaea and Jerusalem, he
said : "I perceive, therefore, that for this cause these
troubles are come upon me ; and, behold, I perish
through great grief in a strange land."
' 2 Mace. ix. ; Jos., Aiitt., XII. ix. I, 2; Milman, Hist, of the Jews,
ii. 9. Appian describes his lingering and wasting illness by the
word (pdlvuv (Syi'uica, 66).
CHAPTER Vr
THE EPILOGUE
THE twelfth chapter of the Book of Daniel serves
as a general epilogue to the Book, and is as little
free from difficulties in the interpretation of the details
as are the other apocalyptic chapters.
The keynote, however, to their right understanding
must be given in the words " At that time" with which
the first verse opens. The words can only mean " the
time " spoken of at the end of the last chapter, the days
of that final effort of Antiochus against the holy people
which ended in his miserable death.
"At that time," then — i.e., about the year b.c. 163 —
the guardian archangel of Israel, " Michael, the great
prince which standeth for the children of thy people,"
shall stand up for their deliverance.
But this deliverance should resemble many similar
crises in its general characteristics. It should not be
immediate. On the contrary, it should be preceded by
days of unparalleled disorder and catastrophe — "a time
of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation
even to that same time." We may, for instance, compare
with this the similar prophecy of Jeremiah (xxx. 4-1 1) :
"And these are the words which the Lord spake con-
cerning Israel and concerning Judah. For thus saith
the Lord ; We have heard a voice of trembling, of
fear, and not of peace. . . . Alas ! for that day is great,
313
320 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
SO that none is like it : it is even the time of Jacob's
trouble ; but he shall be saved out of it. And it shall
come to pass in that day, saith the Lord, that I will
burst thy bonds. . . . Therefore fear thou not, O Jacob,
My servant, saith the Lord ; neither be dismayed, O
Israel. . . . For I am with thee, saith the Lord, to
save thee. For I will make a full end of all the nations
whither I have scattered thee, but I will not make a
full end of thee : but I will correct thee with judgment,
and will in nowise leave thee unpunished." ^
The general conception is so common as even to
have found expression in proverbs, — such as, " The
night is darkest just before the dawn " ; and, " When
the tale of bricks is doubled, Moses comes." Some
shadow of similar individual and historic experiences
is found also among the Greeks and Romans. It lies
in the expression ^eo? airb /x?;;3^ai'^?, and also in the
lines of Horace, —
" Nee Deus intersit nisi digitus vindice nodus
Intersil."
We find the same expectation in the apoci^yphal
Book of Enoch,^ and we find it reflected in the
Revelation of St. John,^ where he describes the devil
as let loose and the powers of evil as gathering them-
selves together for the great final battle of Armageddon
before the eternal triumph of the Lamb and of His
saints. In Rabbinic literature there was a fixed
anticipation that the coming of the Messiah must
inevitably be preceded by " pangs " or " birth-throes,"
of which they spoke as the IT'I^'D 'h'2 } These views
' See too Joel ii. 2. * Rev. xvi. 14, xix. 19.
^ Enoch xc. 16. * Comp. Matt. xxiv. 6, 7, 21, 22.
THE EPILOGUE 321
may parti}' have been founded on individual and
national experience, but they were doubtless deepened
by the vision of Zechariah (xii.).
" Behold, a day of the Lord cometh, when thy spoil
shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather
all nations against Jerusalem to battle ; and the city
shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women
ravished ; and half of the people shall go forth into
captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be
cut off from the city. Then shall the Lord go forth,
and fight against those nations, as when He fought
in the day of battle. And His feet shall stand in that
day upon the Mount of Olives. . , . And it shall come
to pass in that day, that the light shall not be light,
but cold and ice:^ but it shall be one day that is known
unto the Lord, not day and not night : but it shall
come to pass that at evening time there shall be light." "^
The anticipation of the saintly writer in the days
of the early Maccabean uprising, while all the visible
issues were still uncertain, and hopes as yet unaccom-
phshed could only be read by the eyes of faith, were
doubtless of a similar character. When he wrote
Antiochus was already concentrating his powers to
advance with the utmost wrath and fury against the
Holy City. Humanly speaking, it was certain that
the holy people could oppose no adequate resistance
to his overwhelming forces, in which he would doubtless
be able to enlist contingents from many allied nations.
What could ensue but immeasurable calamity to the
great majority ? Michael indeed, their prince, should
do his utmost for them ; but it would not be in his
' Such is the reading of the LXX., Vulgate, Peshitta, Symmachus, etc.
" Zech. xiv. 1-7.
21
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
power to avert the misery which should fall on the
nation generally.
Nevertheless, they should not be given up to utter
or to final destruction. As in the days of the Assyrians
the name Shear-jashub, which Isaiah gave to one of
his young sons, was a sign that " a remnant should
be left," so now the seer is assured that " thy people
shall be delivered " — at any rate " every one that shall
be found written in the book."
'* Written in the book " — for all true Israelites had
ever believed that a book of record, a book of remem-
brance, lies ever open before the throne of God, in
which are inscribed the names of God's faithful ones ;
as well as that awful book in which are written the evil
deeds of men.^ Thus in Exodus (xxxii. 33) we read,
" Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot
out of My book," which tells us of the records against
the guilty. In Psalm Ixix. 28 we read, ** Let them be
blotted out of the book of life, and not be written with
the righteous." That book of the righteous is specially
mentioned by Malachi : *' Then they that feared the
Lord spake one with another : and the Lord hearkened
and heard, and a book of remembrance was written
before him for them that feared the Lord and called
upon His Name." ^ And St. John refers to these
books at the close of the Apocalypse : " And I saw
the dead, the great and the small, standing before the
throne; and books were opened : and another book was
opened, which is the book of life : and the dead were
judged out of the things which were written in the
books, according to their works. . . . And if any one
' Comp. vii. 10: " And the books were opened."
* Mai. iii. i6
THE EPILOGUE
was not found written in the book of life, he was cast
in the lake of fire." ^
In the next verse the seer is told that " many of
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
some to everlasting life, and some to shame and ever-
lasting abhorrence." '^
It is easy to glide with insincere confidence over
the difficulties of this verse, but they are many.
We should naturally connect it with what goes
before as a reference to " that time " ; and if so, it
would seem as though — perhaps with reminiscences
of the concluding prophecy of Isaiah^ — the writer con-
templated the end of all things and the final resurrection.^
If so, we have here another instance to be added to
the many in which this prophetic vision of the future
passed from an immediate horizon to another infinitely
distant. And if that be the correct interpretation, this
is the earliest trace in Scripture of the doctrine of
individual immortality. Of that doctrine there was
' Rev. XX. 12-15. Compare too Phil. iv. 3 : " With Clement also,
and the rest of my fellow-workers, whose names are in the book
of life."
^ "Many sleepers in the land of dust" seems to mean the dead.
Comp. Jer. li. 39; Psalm xxii. 29; i Thess. iv. 14; Acts vii. 60. For
" shame " see Jer. xxiii. 40. The word for " abhorrence " only
occurs in Isa. Ixvi. 24. The allusion seems to be to the avdcracn^
Kpl<reo)s (John v. 29), the 8eijTepos ddvaros of Rev. xx. 14. Comp.
Enoch xxii.
^ Isa. Ixvi. 24.
* It is certain that the doctrine of the Resurrection acquired more
clearness in the minds of the Jews at and after the period of the
Exile ; nor is there anything derogatory to the workings of the
Spirit of God which lighteth everj' man, in the view which supposes
that they may have learnt something on this subject from the Baby-
lonians and Assyrians. See the testimonies of St. Peter and St. Paul
as to some degree of Ethnic inspiration in Acts x. 34, 35, xvii. 25-3I-
324 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
no full knowledge — there were only dim prognosti-
cations or splendid hopes * — until in the fulness of the
times Christ brought life and immortality to light.
For instance, the passage here seems to be doubly
limited. It does not refer to mankind in general, but
only to members of the chosen people ; and it is not
said that all men shall rise again and receive according
to their works, but only that " many " shall rise to
receive the reward of true life,^ while others shall live
indeed, but only in everlasting shame.
To them that be wise — to "the teacher,"^ and to
those that turn the many to *' righteousness " — there is
a further promise of glory. They " shall shine as the
brightness of the firmament, and as the stars for ever
and ever." There is here, perhaps, a reminiscence of
Prov. iv. 1 8, 19, which tells us that the way of the
wicked is as darkness, whereas the path of the just is
as the shining light that shineth more and more unto
the perfect day. Our Lord uses a similar metaphor in
his explanation of the Parable of the Tares : " Then
shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the king-
dom of their Father." * We find it once again in the
last verse of the Epistle of St. James : " Let him know,
that he who hath converted a sinner from the error
' See Ezek. xxxvii. I-4.
^ Theodoret says that "many" means "all," as in Rom. v. 15 ;
but there it is " the many," and the parallel is altogether defective.
Hofmann gets over the difficulty by rendering it, "And in multitudes
shall they arise." Many commentators explain it not of the final
but of some partial resurrection. Few will now be content with
such autocratic remarks as that of Calvin : " Multos hie ponit pro
omnibus ut certum est."
* Lit. "those that justify the multitude." Comp. Isa. liii. 11, and
see Dan. xi. 33-35.
* Matt. xiii. 43; i Cor. xv. 41 ; Rev. ii. 28.
THE EPILOGUE 325
of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide
a multitude of sins."
But there is a further indication that the writer
expected this final consummation to take place imme-
diately after the troubles of the Antiochian assault ; for
he describes the angel Gabriel as bidding Daniel " to
seal the Book even to the time of the end." Now
as it is clear that the Book was, on any hypothesis,
meant for the special consolation of the persecuted
Jews under the cruel sway of the Seleucid King, and
that then first could the Book be understood, the
writer evidently looked for the fulfilment of his last
prophecies at the termination of these troubles. This
meaning is a little obscured by the rendering, " many
shall run to and fro ^ and knowledge shall be increased."
Ewald, Maurer, and Hitzig take the verse, which
literally implies movement hither and thither, in the
sense, " many shall peruse the Book." ^ Mr. Bevan,
however, from a consideration of the Septuagint Version
of the words, " and knowledge shall be increased " —
for which they read, "and the land be filled with
injustice" — thinks that the original rendering would be
represented by, " many shall rush hither and thither,
and many shall be the calamities." In other words,
" the revelation must remain concealed, because there
is to ensue a long period of commotion and distress." '
If we have been convinced by the concurrence of
many irresistible arguments that the Book of Daniel
is the product of the epoch which it most minutely
describes, we can only see in this verse a part of the
' Comp. Zech. iv. 10. This sense cannot be rigidly established.
^ He refers to i Mace. i. 9, which says of the successors of
Alexander, kox iirXiqdvvai' KaKo, ev rr; yrj .
326 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
literary form which the Book necessarily assumed as
the vehicle for its lofty and encouraging messages.
The angel here ceases to speak, and Daniel, look-
ing round him, becomes aware of the presence of
two other celestial beings, one of whom stood on
either bank of the river. ^ " And one said to the
man clothed in linen, which was above the waters of
the river, How long to the end of these wonders ? " ^
There is a certain grandeur in the vagueness of
description, but the speaker seems to be one of the
two angels standing on either " lip " of the Tigris.
"The man clothed in linen," who is hovering in the
air above the waters of the river, is the same being
who in viii. i6 wears " the appearance of a rnan,"
and calls "from between the banks of Ulai" to
Gabriel that he is to make Daniel understand the
vision. He is also, doubtless, the " one man clothed
in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of
Uphaz, his body like the beryl, his face as flashing-
lightning, his eyes as burning torches, and his voice
like the deep murmur of a multitude," who strikes
such terror into Daniel and his comrades in the vision
of chap. X. 5, 6; — and though all is left uncertain, " the
great prince Michael " may perhaps be intended.
The question how long these marvels were to last,
and at what period the promised deliverance should
be accomplished, was one which would naturally have
the intensest interest to those Jews who — in the agonies
' Jerome guesses that they are the angels of Persia and Greece.
The word "iis^n, lit. "the canal," is often used of tlic Nile.
'^ The LXX. reads koX elira, "and I said," making Daniel the
speaker (so too the Vulgate); but the form of the passage is so
closely analogous to viii. 13, as to leave no doubt that here too " one
saint is speaking to another saint."
THE EPILOGUE
of the Antiochian persecution and at the beginning of
the *' httle help " caused by the Maccabean uprising —
read for the first time the fearful yet consolatory and
inspiring pages of this new apocalypse. The answer
is uttered with the most solemn emphasis. The Vision
of the priest-like and gold-girded angel, as he hovers
above the river-flood, " held up both his hands to
heaven," and swears by Him that liveth for ever and
ever that the continuance of the affliction shall be " for
a time, times, and a half." So Abraham, to emphasise
his refusal of any gain from the King of Sodom, says
that he has " lifted up his hand unto the Lord, the
Most High God, that he would not take from a thread
to a shoe-latchet." And in Exod. vi. 8, when Jehovah
says " I did swear," the expression means literally,
'' I lifted up My hand."^ It is the natural attitude of
calling God to witness ; and in Rev. x. 5, 6, with a
reminiscence of this passage, the angel is described
as standing on the sea, and lifting his right hand to
heaven to swear a mighty oath that there should be no
longer delay.
The " time, two times, and half a time " of course
means three years and a half, as in vii. 25. There can
be little doubt that their commencement is the terminus
a quo which is expressly mentioned in ver. 1 1 : " the
time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away."
We have already had occasion to see that three years,
with a margin which seems to have been variously
computed, does roughly correspond to the continuance
of that total desecration of the Temple, and extinction
of the most characteristic rites of Judaism, which pre-
' Comp. Gen. xiv. 22 ; Dent, xxxii. 40, " For I lift up My hand
unto heaven, and saj', 1 live for ever "; Ezek. xx. 5, 6, etc.
328 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
ceded the death of Antiochus and the triumph of the
national cause.
Unhappily the reading, rendering, and interpretation
of the next clause of the angel's oath are obscure and
uncertain. It is rendered in the R.V., " and when
they have made an end of breaking in pieces the power
of the holy people, all these things shall be finished."
As to the exact translation many scholars differ. Von
Lengerke translates it, " and when the scattering of
a part of the holy people should come to an end, all
this should be ended." The Septuagint Version is
wholly unintelligible. Mr, Bevan suggests an altera-
tion of the text which would imply that, "when the
power of the shattcrer of the holy people [/>., Anti-
ochus] should come to an end, all these things should
be ended." This no doubt would not only give a very
clear sense, but also one which would be identical with
the prophecy of vii. 25, that ''' they [the times and the
law] shall be given unto his hand until a time and
times and half a time." ^ But if we stop short at the
desperate and uncertain expedient of correcting the
original Hebrew, we can only regard the words as
implying (in the rendering of our A.V. and R.V.) that
the persecution and suppression of Israel should pro-
ceed to their extremes! limit, before the woe was
ended ; and of this we have already been assured."^
The writer, in the person of Daniel, is perplexed by
the angel's oath, and yearns for further enlightenment
and certitude. He makes an appeal to the vision with
' Those who can rest content with such exegesis may explain this
to imply that " the reign of antichrist will be divided into three
periods— the first long, the second longer, the third shortest of all,"
just as the seventy weeks of chap. ix. are composed of 7 x 62 x I.
-' By way of comment see I Mace. v. ; 2 Mace. viii.
THE EPILOGUE 329
the question, " O my lord, what shall be the issue [or,
latter end] of these things ? " In answer he is simply
bidden to go his way — i.e., to be at peace, and leave all
these events to God,^ since the words are shut up and
sealed till the time of the end. In other words, the
Daniel of the Persian Court could not possibly have
attached any sort of definite meaning to minutely detailed
predictions affecting the existence of empires which
would not so much as emerge on the horizon till cen-
turies after his death. These later visions could only
be apprehended by the contemporaries of the events
which they shadowed forth.
" Many," continued the angel, " shall purify them-
selves, and make themselves white, and be refined ;
but the wicked shall do wickedly : and none of the
wicked shall understand ; the teachers shall under-
stand."^
The verse describes the deep divisions which should
be cleft among the Jews by the intrigues and persecu-
tions of Antiochus. Many would cling to their ancient
and sacred institutions, and purified by pain, purged
from all dross of worldliness and hypocrisy in the fires
of affliction, like gold in the furnace, would form the new
parties of the Chasidim and the Anavim, " the pious "
and " the poor." They would be such men as the good
high priest Onias, Mattathias of Modin and his glorious
sons, the scribe Eleazar, and the seven dauntless
martyrs, sons of the holy woman who unflinchingly
watched their agonies and encouraged them to die
rather than to apostatise. But the wicked would con-
tinue to be void of all understanding, and would go
"^2 is encouraging, as in ver. 13.
Corap. Rev. xxii. 1 1.
330 THE BOOK OF DANIEL
on Still in their wickedness, like Jason and Menelaus,
the renegade usurpers of the high-priesthood. These
and the whole Hellenising party among the Jews, for
the sake of gain, plunged into heathen practices, made
abominable offerings to gods which were no gods, and
in order to take part in the naked contests of the Greek
gymnasium which they had set up in Jerusalem, delibe-
rately attempted to obliterate the seal of circumcision
which was the covenant pledge of their national con
secration to the Jehovah of their fathers.
" And from the time that the continual burnt offering
shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh
desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred
and ninety days."
If we suppose the year to consist of twelve months
of thirty days, then (with the insertion of one intercalary
month of thirty days) twelve hundred and ninety days
is exactly three and a half years. We are, however,
faced by the difficulty that the time from the desecration
of the Temple till its reconsecration by Judas Maccabaeus
seems to have been exactly three years ; ^ and if that
view be founded on correct chronology, we can give
no exact interpretation of the very specific date here
furnished.
Our difficulties are increased by the next clause :
" Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand
three hundred and five and thirty days."
All that we can conjecture from this is that, at the
' The small licathen altar to Zeus was built by Antic. bus upon the
great altar of burnt offering on Kisleu 15, B.C. 168. The revolt of
Maltathias and bis seven sons began B.C. 167. Judas the Maccabee
defeated the Syrian generals Apollonius, Seron, and Gorgias B.C. 166,
and Lysias at Beth-sur in B.C. 165. lie cleansed and rededicated the
Temple on Kisleu 25, B.C. 165.
THE EPILOGUE 331
close of twelve hundred and ninety days, by the writer's
reckoning from the cessation of the daily burnt offering,
and the erection of the heathen abomination which drove
all faithful Jews from the Temple, up to the date of
some marked deliverance, would be three and a half
years, but that this deliverance would be less complete
and beatific than another and later deliverance which
would not occur till forty-five days later.^
Reams of conjecture and dubious history and imagi-
naiive chronology have been expended upon the effort
to give any interpretation of these precise data which
can pretend to the dignity of firm or scientific exegesis.
Some, for instance, like Keil, regard the numbers as
symbolical, which is equivalent to the admission that
they have little or no bearing on literal history ; others
suppose that they are conjectural, having been penned
before the actual termination of the Seleucid troubles.
Others regard them as only intended to represent round
numbers. Others again attempt to give them historic
accuracy by various manipulations of the dates and
events in and after the reign of Antiochus. Others
relegate the entire vision to periods separated from the
Maccabean age by hundreds of years, or even into the
remotest future. And none of these commentators, by
their researches and combinations, have succeeded in
establishing the smallest approach to conviction in the
minds of those who take the other views. There can
" The " time, times, and a half." The 1,290 days, 1,335 days, and
the 1,150 days, and the 2,300 days cf viii. 14 all agree in indicating
three years with a shorter or longer fraction. It will be observed
that in each case there is a certain reticence or vagueness as to the
Urniimis ad quern. It is interesting to note that in Rev. xi. 2, 3, the
period of 42 months = 1,260 daj's == 3^ years of months of 30 daj-s
with no intercalary month.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
be little doubt that to the writer and his readers the
passage pointed either to very confident expectations
or very well-understood realities ; but for us the exact
clue to the meaning is lost. All that can be said is
that we should probably understand the dates better
if our knowledge of the history of B.C. 165-164 was
more complete. We are forced to content ourselves
with their general significance. It is easy to record
and to multiply elaborate guesses, and to deceive our-
selves with the merest pretence and semblance of
certainty. For reverent and severely honest inquiries
it seems safer and wiser to study and profit by the
great lessons and examples clearly set before us in
the Book of Daniel, but, as regards many of its un-
solved difficulties, to obey the wise exhortation of the
Rabbis, —
" Learn to say, ' I do not know.' "
APPROXIMATE CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES
B.C.
Jehoiakim . . 608-597
Zedekiah . . . 597-588
Jerusalem taken , . 588
Death of Nebuchadrezzar . 561
Evil-merodach . . . 561
Neriglissar . . -559
Laborosoarchod . -555
Nabunaid . . . -555
Capture of Babylon . .538
Decree of Cyrus . . 536
Cambyses . . . 529
Darius, son of Hystaspes . 521
Dedication of the Second
Temple. . . .516
Battle of Salamis . . 480
Ezra 458
Nehemiah .... 444
Nehemiah's reforms . . 428
B.C.
420
Malachi ....
Alexander the Great in-
vades Persia .
Battle of Granicus .
Battle of Issus .
Battle of Arbela
Death of Darius Codo-
mannus ....
Death of Alexander .
Ptolemy Soter captures
Jerusalem
Simon the Just high
priest ....
Beginning of Septuagint
translation
Antiochus the Great con-
quers Palestine . (?) 202
334
334
333
331
330
323
320
310
284
B.C.
176
Dan. vii. 8, 20.
Accession of Antiochus Epiphanes
Joshua (Jason), brother of Onias III.,
gets the priesthood by bribery, and
promotes Hellenism among the Jews 174 Dan. xi. 22-24, ix. 26,
First expedition of Antiochus against
Egypt. — Murder of Onias III. . . 171
His second expedition . . (?) 170
His plunder of the Temple and mas-
sacre at Jerusalem ....
Tliird expedition of Antiochus .
Apollonius, the general of Antiochus,
advances against Jerusalem with an
army of 22,000. — Massacre. — The
abomination of desolation in the
333
170
169
Dan. viii. 9, 10; xi. 28.
Dan. xi. 29, 30.
Dan.
vii. 21, 24, 25;
334 CHRONOLOGICAL AND GENEALOGICAL TABLES
Temple. — Antiochus carries off some viii. 11-13, 24, 25 ;
of the holy vessels (i Mace. i. 25); xi. 30-35, etc.
forbids circumcision ; burns the
books of the Law ; puts down the
daily sacrifice .... 169-8
Desecration of the Temple. — Jews
compelled to pay public honour
to false gods. — Faithfulness of
scribes and Cliasidnn. — Revolt ot
Maccabees 167 Dan. xi. 34, 35; xii. 3.
Jewish war of independence. — Death
of the priest Mattathias. — Judas
Maccabaeus defeats Lysias . .166
Battles of Beth-zur and Emmaus. — Dan. vii. II, 26; viii.
Purification of Temple (Kisleu 25) . 165 14 ; xi. 45, etc.
Death of Antiochus Epiphanes . .163
Judas Maccabaeus dies in battle at
Eleasa 161
GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE LAGID.E,
PTOLEMIES, AND SELEUCID^
Seleucus Nicator,
B.C. 312-280. Ptolemy Soter (Dan. xi. s).
Antiochus I. (Soter), Ptolemy Philadelphus.
B.C. 280. I
I ' ■ 1 I ' 1
Laodice=pAntiochus II. (Theos)=pBerenice. Ptolemy Euerpetes,
B.C. 260-246. I B.C. 285-247 (Dan. xi. 7, 8).
I An infant, murdered I
I I , by Laodice. |
Seleucus II. Antiochus. Ptolemy Philopator,
(Kallinikos), B.C. 222-205 (Dan. xi. 10-12).
d. B.C. 226.
I ' 1
Seleucus III. Antiochus III. (" the Great ' ),
(Keraunos). b.c. 224 (Dan. xi. 10-12, 14).
Seleucus Antiochus IV. Cleopatra=j=Ptolemy Epiphanes,
Philopator. (Epiphanes), B.C. 175. 1 b.c. 205-181 (Dan. xi. 14).
I I
Demetrius. Antiochus V., Ptolenry"pWlometor, ~Ptolemy
B.C. 104. g J, 181.146 (Dan xi, 25-30). Euergctes II.
For a fuller list and further identifications see Driver, pp. 461,
462, and supra. For the genealogical table see Mr. Deane (Bishop
Ellicott's Coutntenfaiy, v. 402).*
Date Due
' ^- ^ --^
^S^i
*>
vCT e 'fc'4
-•KL^ ■- • '
»-v.«.^».^ .r.™**?
Mivm
M*
"'iy--^^
E].:
^mmmm^
PW
^^S
s^-
ipa^
(|)
BS1555.F242
The book of Daniel.
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library
1 1012 00074 4948