Skip to main content

Full text of "A critical commentary on the book of Daniel"

See other formats



















A. Aquila. 

Abh. Lagarde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen. 

AJP. American Journal of Philology. 

AL. Delitzsch, Assyrische Lesestiicke. 3 edition. Leipzig. 1885. 

Arm. Stud. Lagarde, Armenische Studien. 

ASKT. Haupt, Akkadische and Sumerische Keilschrifttexte. Leipzig. 

Asurb. The Annals of Asurbanipal. KB. ii. pp. 152 237. 
Asurb. Sm. George Smith, The History of Asurbanipal. London. 1871. 
Asurn. The Annals of Asurnacirpal. KB. i. pp. 48—128. 
A. V. The Authorized Version. 

AW. Fried. Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handworterbucb. Leipzig. 1896. 
BA. Beitrage zur Assyriologie. 

Behrmann. Behrmann, Das Bucb Daniel. Gottingen. 1894. 
Bevan. Bevan, The Book of Daniel. Cambridge. 1892. 
Bezold, Lit. Bezold, Babylonisch-Assyrische Literatur. Leipzig. 1886. 
CJS. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. 

Del. Prol. Fried. Delitzsch , Prolegomena e. neuen hebraisch- aramaischen 
Worterbuchs zum A. T. Leipzig. 188G. 

EIH. The East India House Inscription of Nebuchadnezzar. KB. iii. 2. 
pp. 10-31. 

Flemming, Nbk. Flemming, Die grosse Steinplatteninschrift Nebuchad- 

nezzars d. II. Gottingen. 1883. 
GGA. Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen. 
Qes. Abh. See Abh. 
Gi\ Ven. Graecus Venetus. 

HNE. Haupt, Das Babylonische Nimrodepos. Leipzig. 1884—1891. 
JA. Journal Asiatique. 
JBL. Journal of Biblical Literature. 

J. H. U. Circ. The Johns Hopkins University Circulars. 
Jhvh. Jehovah. 

JRAS. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 
Kamphausen. Kamphausen, The Book of Daniel. Critical edition of the 

Heb. and Aram. Text. Leipzig. 1896. 


KAT. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. Giessen. 1883. 
English translation: The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old 
Testament. London. 1885—8. 
KB. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bihliothek. Berlin. 1889-1892. 
Khors. The Khorsabad inscription of Sargon. KB. ii. pp. 52-81. 
Lib. Dan. Biir and Delitzsch, Lihri Danielis, Ezrae et Nehemiae. Leipzig. 

LXX. The Septuagint. 

Nabop. Inscription of Nahopolassar. KB. iii. pp. 2-9. 
NHWB. Levy, Neuhebniisehes und Chahhiischcs Worterbuch. Leipzig. 

N. T. The New Testament. 

Ob. The Shalmaneser Obelisk. KB. i. pp. 128-150. 
Opp. Doc. Jur. Oppert, Documents Juridiques de l'Assyrie et de la 

Chaldee. Paris. 1877. 
O. T. The Old Testament. 
P. The Peshitta. 

Paradies. Fried. Delitzsch. Wo lag das Paradies? Leipzig. 1881. 
RE. Herzog's Realencyclopedie. 
B,m. Rammannirari III. KB. i. pp. 188—193. 
S. SymmachuB. 

Sarg. Cyl. The Sargon Cylinder. KB. ii. pp. 34-51. 
Schrader, Cun. Inscr. The English translation to KAT. 
Senn. The Taylor Cylinder of Sennacherib. KB. ii, pp. 80—113. 
Sfg. Haupt, Die Sumerischen Familiengesetze. Leipzig. 1879. 
Shalm. Mon. The Shalmaneser Monolith. KB. i. pp. 150-175. 
St. O. Theologische Studien und Skizzen aus Ostpreussen. 
Str. Strassmaier. 

Tig. The prism inscription of Tiglathpileser I. KB. i. pp. 14-47. 
UAG. Hugo Wincklcr, Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen Geschichte 

Leipzig. 1889. 
V. The Vulgate. 

Vers. Mass. The Marseilles Version. 
Vog. De Vogue, La Syrie Centrale. Paris. 1868—1877. 
ZA. Zeitschrift for Assyriologie. 

ZATW. Stade's Zeitschrift fur alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 
ZB. Zimmern, Babylonische Busspsalmen. Leipzig. 1885. 
ZDMG. Zeitschrift der deutsehen morgenliindischen Gesellschaft. 
ZK. Zeitschrift fur Keilschriftforschung. 
'/■ Psalm. 









AND ASSYRIAN WORDS pp. 266-269. 



Since the final closing of the Old Testament Canon, which 
probably took place about 100 B. C, perhaps no work included 
therein has excited more interest than the much disputed Book 
of Darnel. Indeed, a mere list of all that has been written 
both in defence of and against the authenticity of this pro- 
duction would fill a fair sized volume. It is obviously im- 
possible, therefore, for a critical treatment of Daniel to be 
exhaustive in the sense of embodying all the opinions ever 
advanced regarding the interpretation, authorship and origin 
of the work, nor, in view of the immense mass of valueless 
literature dating from almost every Christian century which 
exists on the subject, would it be desirable to attempt such 
a task. 

The object of the following commentary is to present as 
concisely as possible, especially to the student of the English 
Bible, the consensus of critical opinion regarding the many 
problems arising from the study of the Book of Daniel and 
to add such new matter as has been suggested by a careful 
examination of the text and exegesis. With tins aim in view, 


for the sake of greater clearness, the work is divided into 
three parts; viz., a General Introduction, pp. 1-5(5, a Critical 
Commentary, pp. 57—193, and a Philological Commentary, pp. 
195—259, for which the discussion of all the purely technical 
points has been reserved. 

The writer has incorporated into the present work nearly 
all the material published in his Dissertation for the Doctorate 
"Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin", Baltimore, 1893. 

J. Dyneley Prince. 

Hall of Languages 

University Heights, New York City. 





The Book of Daniel stands between Ezra and Esther in 
the third great division of the Hebrew Bible known as the 
Hagiographa, in which are classed all works which were not 
regarded as being part of the Law or the Prophets. 

Ancient Translations. 

There were five ancient translations of Daniel, parts of all 
of which are still extant: 

1. The Septuagint. 
This is thought to antedate the Christian era by more than 
a century and differs in so many details from the present 
Masoretic text as to make it appear evident that the early 
Greek translators had an original text before them which 
varied in many particulars from the one now in use. 

2. Theo.dotion's Greek Version. 
This is merely a later revision of the LXX., probably pre- 
pared in the second Christian century. The translations of 
Theodotiou and the LXX. were subsequently confused with 
each other, interpolations from the LXX. having been intro- 
duced into Theodotion and vice versa. 

3. Aquila and Symmachus. 
Only fragments of the work of these translators exist. 

Prince, Daniel. 1 


4. The Peshitta. 
The Spiac version is almost identical with the present 
accepted Masoretic text. 

5. The Coptic translation. 

This is based on Theodotion and has a long supplementary 

chapter generally supposed to have been composed as late as 

1000 A.D. 1 

Later additions. 

In addition to these translations, there are certain later 

apocryphal variations of and additions to the Book, e. g. first, 

the three early productions found in the Apocrypha; viz., the 

Story of Susannah, the Song of the Three Children, and Bel 

and the Dragon; secondly, a Jewish apocalypse preserved hi 

Persian which dates from the ninth century A. D. 2 , and finally 

a similar Christian book which originated in the eleventh 

century A. D. 

Divisions of the Book. 

The Book of Daniel presents the unusual peculiarity of 
being written in two languages, Cc. i.-ii., 4 and viii.-xii. 
being in Hebrew, while the text of Cc. ii. 4-vii. is in the 
Palestinian dialect of Aramaic. The subject matter, however, 
falls naturally into two divisions, not co-terminous with the 
linguistic sections, e. g. Cc. i.-vi. and vii.-xii., inch The first 
of these sense divisions treats primarily of the adventures at 
the Babylonian court of the Hebrew hero Daniel and secon- 
darily, of those of his three companions Shadrach, Mesech 
and Abeduego 3 , the scene being laid in the reigns of Nebuchad- 
nezzar the great king of Babylon (604-561 B. C), of Belshazzar 
who appears in the narrative as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, 
and of Darius the Mede who is represented as the conqueror 
of Belshazzar and the successful invader of Babylon. 

1 For a description of these translations, see Bevan, Dan. pp. 1—3; 
43 ft'., and Behrmann, Dan. pp. xxviii. ft'. 2 See Zotenberg, Archiv tin- 
Erforachung d. A. T. Bd. i. 1869. 3 Called Hananiah, Misael and 
Azariah in i., 6. These names were changed by the Chief Eunuch to 
Shadrach, Mesech and Abednego. 


Daniel and his friends at court. 
The Book opens with an introductory account, C. i., ex- 
plaining the presence of Daniel and his three friends at the 
court of Nebuchadnezzar. In consequence of a royal command 
to the Chief Eunuch, who then as now acted as Master of 
Ceremonies at oriental courts, this official chose certain children 
of royal and noble birth to serve as attendants in the palace 
and learn the wisdom and language of the Chaldaeans. Among 
these were the four Jewish youths just mentioned who, in 
spite of their refusal for religious reasons to defile themselves 
with the king's food and wine, throve so marvellously both 
physically and mentally that they excelled their fellow servants 
in all matters of wisdom and understanding, especially in the 
much prized arts of astrology and divination, and were accord- 
ingly assured permanent positions at the court. 

The Dream of the Composite Image. 

The narrative then passes on abruptly in C. ii. to a special 
episode in the life of Nebuchadnezzar, e. g. his unintelligible 
dream regarding the great composite image, to interpret which he 
calls in vain on all the native astrologers and diviners. When 
these have failed and the king in great wrath has issued a 
sweeping command that every member of the college of magi- 
cians shall be slain, which is understood to include Daniel and his 
three friends, the secret of the dream is miraculously revealed 
to Daniel who is forthwith hurried before the king, to whom 
he announces the interpretation. The great monarch straightway 
accepts Daniel's explanation as the correct one and not only re- 
cognizes the power of the Hebrew's God, but elevates the cap- 
tive to be ruler of the whole province of Babylon and to be 
chief of the court sages. Not content with this, the king also 
appoints Daniel's three compatriots to subordinate positions of 
trust in the government. 

The Episode of the Fiery Furnace. 

This latter statement forms the connecting link, by means 
of which the author introduces the well-known third chapter 



describing the miraculous deliverance of these three persons 
from the fiery furnace, to which they had been condemned 
owing to their contumacy in refusing to worship a great idol 
which Nebuchadnezzar had set up for the adoration of all his 
people. This account seems a little strange to a modern reader, 
et uning as it does almost directly after the assertion that 
Nebuchadnezzar had already definitely recognized the God of 
Daniel and his compatriots as a "God of gods" and a "Lord 
of kings". At the end of C. ih\, also, there is a repetition of 
the statement that the king appointed Shadrach, Meseeh and 
Abednego over the province of Babylon. 

The Vision of the Great Tree and the King's Insanity. 
The fourth chapter has little direct connection with what 
precedes, save that, in a general way, part of the subject matter, 
the interpretation by Daniel of a dream of Nebuchadnezzar, 
resembles that of C. ii. In C. iv. the story is told by the 
king himself in the first person in the form of a decree. He 
announces to all peoples, nations and races, for their greater 
edification, the narrative of the vision of the Great Tree which 
was interpreted by Daniel as being prophetic of the king's 
period of insanity when his mind became deranged, so that he 
wandered forth with the beasts and ate grass. The fulfill- 
ment of this prophecy comes at once, even while the king is 
exclaiming at its improbability. The monarch himself states 
that he actually became like a beast for a brief period, but 
that eventually his mind returned and he saw the error of 
his ways. He accordingly once more, the third time in this 
strange series of stories, praises the "King of Heaven whose 
works are truth". There can be little doubt that the author 
purposely allowed these numerous and striking repetitions to 
stand, in order that he might emphasize his main theme all 
the more strongly, e. g. the power of Jhvh to rescue his 
servants from any danger, however imminent and apparently 


The Feast of Belshazzar. 

In Cc. v.— vi. the narrative makes quite a new departure. The 
traditions at the author's disposal concerning Nebuchadnezzar's 
religious experiences being probably exhausted, he proceeds to 
embody into his work the account of the writing on the wall at 
the feast of Belshazzar whom he regards as the son and succes- 
sor of Nebuchadnezzar. Here it is stated that Belshazzar gave a 
festival to the lords and ladies of his court, at which the sacred 
vessels of the Jerusalem temple, which had been brought to 
Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar at the time of the Judaean captivity 
in 586 B. C, were profaned by the ribald company. In conse- 
quence of this, during the midst of the festivities, a Hand was 
seen writing on the wall of the chamber a mysterious sentence 
which defied all attempts at interpretation until the Hebrew 
sage Daniel was called. He read and translated the unknown 
words which proved to be a divine menace against the govern- 
ment of the dissolute Belshazzar whose kingdom was to be 
divided between the Medes and Persians. In the last verse 
we are told that Belshazzar was slain in that same night and 
that his power passed to Darius the Mede, a statement which 
serves as a connecting link between Cc. v— vi. 
The Den of Lions. 

Chapter vi, the last section of the first division of the book, 
is devoted to the well-known story of Daniel's miraculous 
escape from the den of lions, into which he was thrown through 
the machinations of certain officials at the court of Darius 
the Mede. After Daniel emerges in safety from his great 
peril, Darius punishes the plotters by casting them and their 
families to be devoured by the same lions whose mouths had 
been divinely closed against Daniel. The king is then represen- 
ted as publicly acknowledging the power of Daniel's God and 
requiring by a decree that all his 'people do the same. 

The Uniformity of the Narrative. 
The most superficial reader of the Book of Daniel cannot 
fail to notice the strikingly uniform character of the narratives 


in the first nix chapters. In every case there is a heathen 
king reproved by the God of the captive Jews, either through 
the interpretation by an inspired servant of Jhvh of a dream 
or portent revealed to the unbelieving monarch, or by an actual 
miracle, by means of which the divinely favoured person or 
persons are rescued from the futile malice of their heathen foes. 

The Second Part of the Book. 

The style of the last division of the Book (vii.-xii.) is very 

different to that of the narrative sections. Instead of stories 

treating of the personal adventures of Daniel and his friends, 

we find here apocalyptic descriptions of four prophetic visions 

supposed to have been revealed to and recorded by the Hebrew 

Seer at various times during his service at the Babylonian 


The Vision of the Four Beasts. 

Chapter vii., the first of the series, is the record of the vision 

of the four beasts, tvpifying the four world empires, and also 

the additional vision of the ultimate domination of the Messianic 

Man. It is distinctly stated here that four world empires are 

to arise, during which time the sufferings of the saints are to 

increase until they culminate at the end of the fourth empire 

under a prince worse than all his predecessors, after which 

the kingdom of God is to appear. A careful examination of 

the book makes it apparent that the author believed that 

Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son Belshazzar who was 

displaced by Darius the Mode and he in turn followed by 

Cyrus the Persian. It seems evident, therefore, that in the 

mind of the author 4 the four empires were: 

1. The Babyloninn monarchy, represented by Nebuchadnezzar 
and his immediate successor Belshazzar. 

2. That of Darius the Mede. 

3. The Persian empire under Cyrus. 

4 This view, which is a very ancient one, is now so generally 
accepted as not to require discussion. 


4. The empire of Alexander and his successors, culminat- 
ing in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164. B. C). 

The Ram and the Goat. 
Chapter viii. sets forth the second vision concerning the 
Ram and Goat which is explained to Daniel by a superhuman 
interpreter as being prophetic of the conflict between the kings 
of Media and Persia and "the king of Grecia". 

The Style of the Visions. 
It is noticeable that in Cc. vii.-viii. the language describing 
the visions is highly typical, requiring a special interpretation 
before Daniel comprehends it, the author making use of a ram 
and a goat, as well as of composite beasts as the symbols of 
the historical events of which he speaks. From ix. to xii., 
however, he throws aside these ambiguous terms and makes 
Daniel receive his information in clearer and more direct 


The Seventy Weeks. 
The third vision, C. ix., accordingly, differs radically from 
the preceding sections. It begins with a long penitential 
prayer in which Daniel in exalted language reviews the sins 
of Israel against Jhvh and prays for the divine forgiveness 
for the people. A speedy answer to this supplication comes 
in the person of the angel Gabriel who announces to the Seer 
the mysterious period of seventy weeks of probation for Israel. 

Description of the Seleucidan Period. 
The two last chapters (x.-xii.) deal with the fourth vision 
by the Tigris of the comforting angel, by whom Daniel is 
informed that his prayers have been heard. The messenger 
exhorts the pious Israelite to be firm and take courage, vaguely 
alluding to an impending battle between himself and the prince 
of Persia "after which the prince of Grecia shall come" (evidently 
Alexander the Great). The speaker continues in Cc. xi-xii. 
to prophesy very minutely the course of future history, mention- 
ing in no doubtful terms the immediate predecessors of the 


Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes, as well as the chief events 
of that monarch's evil reign. In fact, in the last tln-ee chapters 
of the book the combats between the Ptolemies and Seleucidae 
are so clearly laid before the reader that the visions have more 
the appearance of history than prophecy. 

Daniel and the Apocalyptic Literature. 
The Book of Daniel is the oldest apocalyptic work on record 
and has served undoubtedly as the model for all later produc- 
tions of this nature, whether Jewish or Christian. The apocalyptic 
writers were in a measure the successors of the ancient prophets 
who had exhorted' and encouraged the people in their various 
vicissitudes by promising the speedy advent of the Messiah 
and the permanent restoration of Israel's glory. Precisely the 
same theme was followed by the authors of the later con- 
solatory literature who, however, in emphasizing it, employed 
an entirely different method. Instead of themselves professing 
to speak as mouth-pieces of Jhvh, they preferred to put re- 
velations suiting the special purpose of their works into the 
mouths of the more famous older prophets, anonymously 
weaving a tissue of wonderful visions and symbolical images 
supposed to have been revealed to some great seer of anti- 
quity, but always having a direct reference to events which 
were really within the scope of the author's own knowledge. 
The obscure imagery employed by writers of tin's school was 
undoubtedly purposely used to veil the true meaning of their 
consolatory predictions which, for example, in the case of the 
Book of Daniel, a work obviously directed against a perse- 
cuting monarch, could certainly not have been published hi 
plain language with any safety to the author. The influence 
of the Book of Daniel is clearly seen not only in the apocrypha] 
and apocalyptic works mentioned above, but throughout all 
the later apocalyptic literature, the most notable example of 
which is, of course, the great Apocalypse of St. John in the 
New Testament. 




Regarding the literary unity of Daniel, opinions vary. Some 
critics, owing to the great difference in style between the two 
divisions of the book, have believed in a separate origin for 
the first six chapters 1 . Moreover, the fact that from ii. 4 
through vii, the text is in Aramaic and not in Hebrew has 
not unnaturally influenced some scholars to believe that the 
Aramaic portions have a separate origin from the other parts 

of the book 2 . 

Uniformity of the Prophecies. 
A comparison of the apocalyptic and narrative chapters, 
however, makes it apparent that we have the same prophecies 
in all repeated in different forms. Thus, the vision of the 
colossal image in the narrative chapter ii. contains substanti- 
ally the same prophecies as occur in the purely apocalyptic 
chapter vii. in the second part of the work. It should not 
be forgotten, also, that the Aramaic chapter vii., the beginning 
of the second part, is certainly as apocalyptic in character as 
any of the following Hebrew sections. Moreover, the natural 

1 Thus, Sack, Herbst and Davidson attributed the second part of 
the work to Daniel, but regarded the first six chapters as an intro- 
duction to the visions written by a later Jew. Eichhorn believed that 
Cc. ii. 4— vi. were written by one author, and Cc. vii.— xii. with i.— ii. 3 
by another. • Zockler, for example, following some of his prede- 
cessors such as Kranichfeld, considered the Aramaic sections as extracts 
from a contemporary journal in the vernacular (Dan. p. 4). Even 
Driver (Introd. pp. 482—3), although seeing the objection to such a 
view, remarks with some caution that the theory of a separate origin 
for these sections deserves consideration. Meinhold (Diss. p. 38 and 
Beitrage z. Erklarung d. B. Dan. pp. 32; 70.) believed that the Aramaic 
portions were in existence at the time of Alexander the Great. We 
should compare, in this connection, Strack (in Zockler's Hdbch. i. 165) 
who inclines to this view, although admitting that the book at present 
forms an indivisible whole (cf. also Lenormant, Magie; Germ. ed. 
pp. 527; 565). 


division of the work is undoubtedly after Chapter vi., so that, 
if the difference in language were a sign of a separate origin 
for these narrative sections, we would expect C. vii., the be- 
ginning of the distinctly apocalyptic portion, to be in Hebrew, 
which, however, is not the case. The Aramaic seventh chapter 
belongs as completely to the following Hebrew apocalyptic 
sections as the Hebrew first chapter is essentially part of the 
following Aramaic narrative sections. There can be little 
doubt, therefore, that any theory seeking to divide the author- 
ship of the book on the basis of the unexpected change of 
language is untenable. 

Definite Plan of the Work. 

A resume of the contents shows clearly that a definite plan 
was followed in the arrangement of the work. The author 
evidently sought to demonstrate to his Jewish readers the 
necessity of faith in Israel's God Who does not allow His 
chosen ones to suffer for ever under the heel of the ruthless 
heathen oppressor. To illustrate this, he makes use, on the 
one hand, of carefully chosen narratives, each arranged in a 
separate section which was only very loosely connected with 
the others, but all treating of substantially the same subject; 
the triumph of God's servant over his unbelieving enemies, 
and on the other hand of certain prophetic visions which 
are revealed to this same servant. So carefully, indeed, is the 
record of the visions arranged, that the first two chapters of 
the second part of the Book (vii.-viii.) were probably pur- 
posely made to appear in a symbolic form, in order that in 
the last two revelations, which were couched in such direct 
language as to be intelligible even to the modern student of 
history, the author may obtain the effect of a climax. 
Daniel not a series of "Disjecta membra". 

The Book of Daniel can hardly be said to be "a bundle 
of loose leaves" as Lagarde called it s , except in the sense 

8 Mitt. iv. p 351 (1891), commenting on a similar view of J. D. 
Michaelis. Cf. also GGA. 1891. pp. 497 520, especially pp. 500 517. 


that the author undoubtedly made use of some material which 
he found ready to his hand. He most probably arranged his 
work purposely in more or less disconnected sections, in order 
to facilitate its diffusion at a time when books became known 
to the people at large chiefly by being read aloud in public 4 . 
The uniform plan of the Book and the studied arrangement 
of its subject matter show conclusively that it is the work 
of a single author, and the extreme theory, therefore, that 
Daniel is merely a collection of Danieliana, e. g. a number of 
parts of different origin joined loosely together by a careless 
editor must be unqualifiedly rejected 5 . 

The change of Language. Aramaic not the Language 
of Babylonia. 
Various attempts have been made to explain the sudden 
change from Hebrew to Aramaic in ii. 4. Some of the older 
commentators thought that Aramaic was the vernacular of 
Babylonia and was consequently employed as the language 
of the parts relating to that country 6 . Such a view is of 
course no longer tenable, as the cuneiform inscriptions now 
show that both Assyria and Babylonia had a distinct Semitic 
language of their own which remained in use until quite a late 
date, certainly later than the time of the author of Daniel 7 . 

This view of Lagarde's was really a repetition of that of Bertholdt, 
Dan. pp. 49 ff. 

4 See Bevan, Dan. p. 25. 5 Cf. Bleek, Einl. p. 415; Delitzsch, 
RE. 2 vii. p. 471; Reuss, Gesch., p. 599, and more lately Kamphausen, 
Das Buch Daniel und die neuere Geschichtsforschung. 1893, p. 8. 
6 So Kliefoth, Dan. p. 44; Keil, Dan. p. 14. 7 The latest connected 
Babylonian inscription is that of Antiochus Soter (280—260 B. C.), 
published V. R. 66 and translated by Peiser, KB. iii. pt. 2, p. 136. 
Noldeke's theory, advanced in his brochure, Die Semitischen Sprachen, 
pp. 41 ft'., that the Assyrian language died as a spoken idiom shortly 
before the fall of Nineveh is wholly unfounded. Gutbrod refers in 
ZA. vi. p. 27 to a brick, found at Tello, on which was engraved in 
Aramaic and Greek letters a proper name of distinctly Assyrian 
character; viz., MWiiTiX, 'J&ttdvtt&ivdxrjs- When it is remembered that 
a living language exercises the greatest possible influence on the 
formation of proper names, this brick, which is unfortunately undated, 


The View of Merx. 
The theory of Merx is equally unconvincing that Aramaic, 
which was the popular tongue of the period when the Book 
was written, was used for the narratives for this reason, while 
Hebrew, as the more learned language, was made the idiom 
of the philosophical portions. The plain answer to this idea 
is that Chapter i., which is just as much in the narrative 
style as the following Aramaic sections, is in Hebrew, while 
the distinctly apocalyptic Chapter vii. is in Aramaic. 

The "Hybrid" Theory. 

A third supposition that the bilingual character of the work 
points to a time when Hebrew and Aramaic were used in- 
differently is highly unsatisfactory, as it is very questionable 
if two languages can be used quite indifferently. In fact, a 
hybrid connected work in two idioms would be a literary 
monstrosity 8 . 

Huetius and Bertholdt. 

Huetius, an old commentator, expressed the belief that the 
entire work was written originally in Aramaic and was sub- 
sequently translated into Hebrew 9 . He thought that in the 
troubled Seleucidan period the Hebrew translation was partly 
destroyed and the missing portions supplied from the Aramaic 
original. This theory does not commend itself as the most 
satisfactory explanation of the difficulty, because it would be 
rath or improbable that a writer would go to the trouble of 
translating a work from the popular language into tho idiom 
• if culture which was known only to a few, but rather the 
reverse. The well known scholar Bertholdt, however, in com- 
menting on Huetius' view hit upon what now seems the best 

would seem to be an evidence, as Gutbrod thinks, that Assyrian was 
spoken until Hellenic times. It is perfectly possible that Assyro- 
Habylonian survived as a literary language as late as the second 
century A. D. 

8 Cf. Bertholdt, Dan. p. 15; also Havcrniok, and Franz Delitzsch, 
RE. 2 iii. p. 272 and vii. p. 470. 9 Demonstr. Evang. p. 472. 


solution of the problem, but unfortunately did not adopt it 10 . 
He remarked with a strong touch of sarcasm that it had not 
yet occurred to anyone to consider the Aramaic text as a 
translation and the Hebrew as an original. 

The only possible Explanation. 
In view of the evident unity of the entire work, which 
Bertholdt did not recognize, no other explanation of the bi- 
lingual character of the Book seems possible. The work was 
probably written at first all in Hebrew, but for the convenience 
of the general reader whose language was Aramaic, a trans- 
lation, possibly from the same pen as the original, was made 
into the Aramaic vernacular. It must be supposed then that 
certain parts of the Hebrew manuscript being lost, the missing 
places were supplied from the current Aramaic translation 11 . 


The Book generally credited by the ancients. 
The Book of Daniel was probably in existence as early as 
140 B. C, as there is a reference in the Sybilline verses (iii. 
388 ff.) l which seems to be an allusion to Antiochus Epiphanes 
and the ten horns of Dan. vii. 7; x. 24. Besides this, the 
allusion in 1 Mace. ii. 59-60 to the divine rescue of Daniel's 

' 10 In his Daniel, on v. 2. " So also.Bevan, Dan. pp. 27 ft'. I cannot 
agree in this connection with Kamphausen, op. cit. p. 14, note, who 
rejects this hypothesis on the ground that the author of Daniel fell 
into the error of regarding Chaldasan as the language of Babylonia, 
and consequently deliberately wrote in it those sections applying more 
especially to Babylon, reserving the Hebrew for the more solemn 
prophetical part. Kamphausen does not explain any more than his 
predecessors in this opinion (see above p. 11 note 6) why the apocalyptic- 
Aramaic chapter vii., which is indivisible from the succeeding pro- 
phetic Hebrew portions, is in Aramaic instead of Hebrew. 

1 Schurer, Gesch. d. jiidischen Volkes. ii. pp. 791—799. 


three companions from the fiery furnace shows conclusively 
that the Book was known and generally credited at that time 
(100 B. C). It seems to have been recognized by the ancients 
that the events chronicled in the Book of Daniel were histori- 
cally accurate in every particular and that the work was ac- 
tually the production of the Hebrew Prophet Daniel who lived 
from the time of Nebuchadnezzar the great king of Babylon 
(now known to have reigned 604-561 B. C.) until the beginning 
of the reign of Cyrus in Babylonia (538 B. C.) 2 . This may 
be seen from the references in the New Testament ascribing 
the authorship of the work to Daniel without question 3 and also 
by the writings of the Jewish chronicler Josephus who relates, 
for example, with perfect good faith the fable 4 about the prophe- 
cies of Daniel being shown to Alexander the Great on the 
entry of that monarch into Jerusalem. A long list of more 
modern writers who upheld the authenticity of the Book might 
also easily be cited 5 . 

Early Doubters. 
The first known authority who expressed a doubt as to the 
genuine character of the Book of Daniel was the Neo-Platonist 
Porphyrins (233-304 A. D.) who, in his great work of fifteen books 
directed against the Christians, devoted the whole of the twelfth 
book to an attack on Daniel which he declared to have been the 
work of a Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, originally 
written in Greek 6 . The writings of Porphyrins were all collected 
and burnt by order of the emperors Constantino and Theodosius, 
so that his views have descended to posterity only through 
the works of Jerome who attempted to refute his arguments "'. 

2 See Additional Note i. 3 Matth. xxiv. 15; Mark, xiii. 14, refer- 
ring to Dan. ix. 27; xii. 11. The Roman Church regards Daniel as a 
saint and appoints July 21 st as his day (cf. Baillet, Vitae Sanctorum 
ad diem xxi Julii). 4 Ant. xi. 8, 5. r " See Additional Note ii. 

6 Porphyrias used the Greek version of W which he very probably 
believed to be the original of the work (cf. Bevan Dan. p. 3, quoting 
Jerome). 7 According to the statement of Jerome, he was also an- 
swered by Methodius, Apollinaris of Laodicea and Eusebhja ofCaesaria. 


According to Origen, the pagan Celsus is also said to have 
expressed a doubt concerning the truth of the occurrences 
described in Daniel. 

The Book cannot be authentic history. 
It cannot be denied in the light of modern research that if 
the Book of Daniel be regarded as pretending to full historical 
authority, the Biblical record is open to all manner of attack. 
It is now the general opinion of most scholars who study the 
old Testament from a critical point of view 8 that this work 
cannot possibly have originated according to the traditional 
theory at any tune during the later Babylonian monarchy when 
the events recorded are supposed to have taken place. The 
chief reasons for such a conclusion are as follows : 

1. The position in the Canon. 

The position of the Book among the Hagiographa instead 
of among the Prophetical works would seem to indicate that 
it must have been introduced after the closing of the Prophetical 
canon. The explanation, advanced by some, that the apocalyptic 
nature of the work did not entitle it to a place among the 
Prophetical books and that therefore it was relegated to an 
inferior position is hardly satisfactory. Some commentators 
believed that Daniel was not an actual prophet in the proper 

8 Collins, Scheme of literal Prophecy considered, 1726; Sender, 
Untersuchungen des Canons, iii. p. 505; Corrodi, Versuche iiber ver- 
schiedene in Theologie und Bibelkritik einschlagende Gegenstande, 
1783; Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte d. jiid. u. christl. 
Bibelkanons, i. pp. 75 ff., 1792; Eichhorn, Einl. 4 ; Bertholdt, Dan.; 
Kirms, Commentatio historico - critica, 1828; Redepenning, Dan., 1833; 
v. Lengerke, Dan., 1835; Ewald, Dan.; Hitzig, Dan.; Bunsen, Gott in 
der Gesch. i. Teil, 1857. pp.302; 514; 540; Lucke, Versuch e. vollstiind. 
Einl. i. d. Otfenbarung Johannes 2 ; Bleek, Einl.; Riehni, Einl. ii. p. 292; 
Strack in Zockler's Hdbch. d. Theol. Wissenschaft, i. pp. 164—5, 1885; 
also in Herzog RE. 2 vii. p. 419; Schlottmann, Compendium d. Alttest. 
Theologie, 1887 9; Reuss, Gesch. d. A. T., pp. 592 ff. 1890; C. A. Briggs, 
Messianic Prophecy, pp. 411 ff.; Driver, Introd. p. 467, and many 


sense, but only a seer, or else that he was a prophet merely 
by natural gifts, but not by official standing 9 . If Daniel, 
however, had really seen the visions which are attributed to 
him by the work bearing his name, he would certainly have 
been a great prophet, and, as has been pointed out by Bleek, 
would have had fully as much right to be ranked as such as 
Amos, Ezekiel or Zechariah 10 . The natural explanation regarding 
the position of the Book of Daniel is that the work could not 
have been hi existence at the time of the completion of the 
second part of the Canon, as otherwise, the collectors of the 
prophetical writings, who in their care did not neglect even 
the parable of Jonah, would hardly have ignored the record 
of such a great prophet as Daniel is represented to be. 

2. The Silence of Ecclesiasticus. 
The silence of Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) concerning Daniel 
seems to show that the prophet was unknown to that late 
writer who, in his list of celebrated men (C. xlix), makes no 
mention of Daniel, but passes from Jeremiah to Ezekiel and 
then to the twelve Minor Prophets and Zerubbabel. If Daniel 
had been known to Jesus Sirach, we would certainly expect 
to find his name in this list, probably between Jeremiah and 
Ezekiel. Again, the only explanation seems to be that the 
Book of Daniel was not known to Sirach who lived and wrote 
between 200 and 180 B. C. Had so celebrated a person as 
Daniel been known, he could hardly have escaped mention in 

M The explanation originated with the Rabbinical writers that 
I taniel had the USIpft mi 'spirit of holiness', but not the nxi3Dn mi 
'the official inspiration' (Qanichi, Preface to the Psalms; Maimon, 
More Nebochim, 2. pp.41; 119, quoted Bertholdt, Dan., p. xiii.). This 
rabbinical device was followed and elaborated by a number of the 
later orthodox commentators such as Auberlen, Dan. pp. 34— 5; Delitzsch, 
RE. 2 iii. pp. 271-2; Isaiah, p. 3; Keil, Dan. p. 23, etc. ,0 Cf. Bleek, 
Einl. 6 p. 418. In the LXX. the book is placed directly after Ezekiel, 
which shows that the translators considered it a prophetic work. 
Compart;, in this connection the opinion of Yahya, who attributed to 
Daniel the highest degree of prophetic inspiration : bVMH rtsp nxi^sn. 


such a complete list of Israel's leading spirits. Hengstenberg 
remarked that Ezra and Mordecai were also left uiimentioned, 
but the case is not parallel. Daniel is represented in the work 
attributed to him as a great prophet, while Ezra appears in 
the Book bearing his name as nothing more than a rather 
prominent priest and scholar. 

3. No Traces of the Influence of Daniel on the Prophets. 

A third argument against an early origin for our Book is 
the fact that the post-exilic prophets exhibit no trace of its 
influence. Had the Book of Daniel been extant and generally 
known since the time of Cyrus, it would be reasonable to look 
for some sign of its power among the writings of prophets 
like Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, whose works, however, 
show no evidence that either the name or history of Daniel 
was known to the authors. 

Attention has been attracted, furthermore to the way in 
which the prophets are looked back upon in ix. 6-10, which 
cannot fail to suggest an extremely late origin for the Book. 
Besides this, a careful study of the passage ix. 2 seems to 
indicate that the Canon of the Prophets was definitely estab- 
lished at the time when the author wrote. It is, moreover, 
highly probable that much of the material of the second part 
of the Book was suggested by the works of the later Prophets, 
especially Ezekiel and Zechariah. 

4. The Contents of the "Work show its in authentic 
Finally, the actual contents of the Book itself seem to preclude 
the supposition of even an approximately contemporary origin 
for the work. The narrative chapters, for example, are full 
of striking historical inaccuracies which could never have 
originated at the time of the Judaean captivity in Babylon. 
Three striking Errors. 
This will readily be seen from a cursory summary of the 
three most important errors of this sort: — 

Prince , Daniel. 2 


a) Date of the Capture of Jerusalem. 

The chronological error in C. i. that Nebuchadnezzar took 
Jerusalem as king of Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim 
should be considered first. It is known from Jer. xxv. 1 and 
xxx vi. 9; 29, that Nebuchadnezzar did not begin to reign in 
Babylon until the fourth year of Jehoiakim in Judah, and that 
the Babylonians in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoia- 
kim had not yet come to Jerusalem which was taken in July 58G 
B.C. 11 in the tenth and last year of the reign of Jehoiakim. 
The origin of this error has been traced to a false combina- 
tion of 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6 ff". and 2 Kings xxiv. I 12 . 

b) Belshazzar. 

No writer living at the Babylonian court of Cyrus could 
have asserted that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar 13 . 

c) Darius the Mede. 

No author familiar with the contemporary history could have 
interpolated a Median rule between the last king of Babylon 
and the Persians 14 . 

Foreign Loanwords. 
An additional evidence that the Book of Daniel must have 
been written at a considerably later period than the Persian 
conquest of Babylon may be found in the presence of both 
Persian and Greek loanwords 15 . The occurrence of the former 
shows conclusively that the book must have originated after 

11 See Bleek, op. eit., p. 427. Cf. also Tiele, Gesch. p. 427; 2 Kings 
xxiv. 10—17; Jer. xxix. 2. 12 See Kamphausen, Das Buch Daniel und 
die neuere Geschichtsforschung, p. 17. 13 It is interesting to notice 
that as early as 1757 A. D., Goebel (De Belsasaro, quoted Reuss, op. 
eit. p. 602) calls attention to this historical error. Reuss mentions also 
one Sartorius, Hist. Excid. Babyl. , Tubingen, 1766; also Norberg, 
Opp. iii, p. 222. For full discussion, see below pp. 41 ff. ll For full 
discussion, see below pp. 44 ff. 15 The theory advanced by Strack, 

in Zockler's Handbuch i. p. 165 and RE. 2 vii, p. 419, that the occur- 
rence of Persian loanwords necessarily points to a pre - Maccabsean 
origin for these sections does not seem tenable. It is quite con- 
ceivable that Persian loanwords should have remained until the time 
of Antiochus Epiphanes. 


the Persian conquest of Babylon, while on the other hand the 
presence of Greek words appears to preclude the possibility 
of setting the origin of the work prior to the time of Alexander 
the Great. For example, the names of the three musical in- 
struments in C. iii. 5; 15; translated in the A. V. "dulcimer, 
psaltery and harp" are undoubtedly loanwords from the Greek 
avf.icpcoria, ifialr^Qtov and vu&ccQig, and the reproduction of 
the words in Aramaic is so exact as to presuppose a close 
commercial intercourse between the Greeks and the people 
amoug whom the author of Daniel lived'. It is quite clear, 
however, that no such intercourse could have taken place be- 
fore the time of Alexander and the subsequent Seleucidae 16 . 

The Languages of Daniel. 
No satisfactory argument concerning the age of Daniel can 
be deduced from an examination of the languages in which 
the Book is written save that, as will appear in the subsequent 
commentary, the Hebrew is undoubtedly late and full of 
Aramseisms and in some respects approaches the later language 
of the Mishna. The Aramaic of both Daniel and Ezra is a 
special Palestinian dialect of the language commonly known 
as the Biblical Aramaic, of which the idiom of the Jewish 
Targums is a somewhat modernized form 17 . 

The Apocalyptic Sections. The prophetical Allusions to 
Antioehus Epiphanes. 

Turning more especially to the apocalyptic sections, it is 
quite evident that the predictions in the Book of Daniel centre 
on the period of Antioehus Epiphanes when that Syrian prince 
was endeavouring to suppress the worship of Jhvh and sub- 
stitute for it the Greek idolatry 18 . These passages either break 
off directly with the overthrow of this king, or else add a 
promise of freedom for God's people from all oppressions and 

16 See below on iii. 5 for full discussion regarding the early intercourse 
between the Greeks and Persians. 17 See Bevan, Dan. pp. 28—40 on 
the Hebrew and Aramaic of Daniel. 18 Cf. 2 Mace. v. 11 ft'. 



the announcement of the Messianic kingdom and the resur- 
rection of the dead. There can be no doubt for example that 
in the Little Horn of vii. 8; viii. 9 and the wicked prince 
described in ix.-xi. who is to work such evil among the saints, 
we have clearly one and the same person. It is now generally 
recognized that the king symbolized by the Little Horn, of 
whom it is said that he will come of one of four kingdoms 
which shall be formed from the Greek empire after the death 
of its first king, can be none other than Antiochus Epiphanes, 
and in like manner do the references in C. ix. plainly allude 
to the same prince. It seems quite clear also that xi. 21-45 
refers to the evil deeds of Antiochus IV. and his attempts 
against the Jewish people and the worship of Jhvh. In C. xii. 
follows the promise of salvation from the same tyrant and, 
strikingly enough, the predictions in this last section x.-xii. 
relating to future events become inaccurate as soon as the 
author finishes the section describing the reign of Antiochus 
Epiphanes 19 . 

The Doctrines. 
Not only does the subject matter of the prophecies plainly 
point to a post- Babylonian origin for the work, but also some 
of the beliefs which are set forth in the second part of the 
book practically preclude the possibility of the author's having 
lived at the court of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. 

The Angelology. 
Most noticeable among these doctrines is the complete 
system of angelology consistently followed out in the Book of 
Daniel, according to which the management of human affairs 
is entrusted to a regular hierarchy of commanding angels, 
two of whom, Gabriel and Michael, are even mentioned by 
oame. Such an idea was distinctly foreign to the primitive 
[sraelitish conception of the indivisibility of Jhoh's power and 
must consequently have been a borrowed one. It could cer- 

,a St'c below on Co. x.— xii. 


tainly not have come from the Babylonians, however, whose 
system of attendant spirits was far from being as complete 
as that which we find in the Book of Daniel, but rather from 
Persian sources where a most complicated angelology had been 
developed 20 . There can be little doubt, as many commen- 
tators have brought out, that this doctrine of angels in Daniel 
is an indication of prolonged Persian influence. 

The Resurrection of the Dead. 
Furthermore, the attention of scholars has been directed to 
the fact that the first definite prophecy of a resurrection of 
the dead is f ound in the Book of Daniel 2 * and it is now very 
generally admitted that this doctrine also originated among 
the Persians and could only have become engrafted on the 
Jewish mind after a long period of intercourse with the Zoro- 
astrian religion 22 . It is clearly impossible, therefore, that the 
author of passages showing such beliefs could have lived as 
early as the time of Nebuchadnezzar. 

Style of the Prophecies. 
In addition to all these details, it should be noticed that 
the Book of Daniel differs materially from all other prophetic 
writings of the Old Testament in the general style of its 
prophecies. Other prophets confine themselves to vague and 
general predictions, but the author of Daniel gives a detailed 
account of historical events which may easily be recognized 
through the thin veil of prophetic mystery thrown lightly 
around them. It is highly suggestive that just those occur- 
rences which are the most remote from the assumed stand- 
point of the writer are the most correctly stated, while the 
nearer we approach the author's supposed time, the more 
inaccurate does he become. It should be stated also in this 

20 Cf. Cheyne, Encycl. Brit. vi. p. 806. 21 Cf. Cheyne, Book of 
Isaiah chronologically arranged, p. 130, § 5. 22 The investigations 
of Persian scholars, especially of Haug, Spiegel and Windischmann 
show that this is a real Zoroastrian doctrine. 


connection that the chronological reckoning by weeks and 
days in the prophecies of Daniel is quite at variance with 
the usual custom of the Hebrew prophets who rarely set a 
definite time for the fulfillment of a prediction, but almost 
invariably give their dates in round numbers 23 . 

Impossibility of Babylonian Authorship. 
It would be extremely difficult to reconcile all these facts, 
which will be discussed still further in the following chapters, 
with the theoiy of a Babylonian authorship for the Book, 
because, setting aside the marvel of such accurate prophecy 
relating to the Seleucidan period centuries before the events 
referred to, it would be natural to suppose that a prophet of 
the time of the Babylonian captivity would rather direct his 
attention to the freedom of his people from their immediate 
servitude in Babylon than from the oppression of a king who 
ruled several hundred years later. It would be more natural, 
therefore, to expect hi an early work prophecies of the return 
of the Jews to Palestine, as in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah, 
rather than the proclamation of an ideal Messianic kingdom 
such as we find in the second part of the Book of Daniel 24 . 

The significance of Daniel not destroyed. 
It should not be said that Daniel loses any of its beauty 
and force because we are bound in the light of modern criti- 
cism to consider it a production of the reign of Antiochus 
Epiphanes, nor should conservative Bible readers exclaim be- 
cause the historical accuracy of the work is thus destroyed. 
There can be no doubt that the influence of the Book was 
a very great one on the subsequent developement of Christia- 
nity, but it was not the influence of the history contained in 

23 Except the interpolated passage Is. vii. 8; in which connection, 
see Delitzsch, Isaiah, p. 137. 24 For the evident lateness of this part 
of the book cf. Bleek, Einl. p. 420; Strack, RE. 2 vii. p. 419; Hoffmann, 
Antiochus IV., pp. 82 ff; Driver, Introd. p. 461. Derenbourg remarked 
rightly that the contents of C. ix, referring to Jerusalem, should 
remove all further doubt as to the late origin (Hebraica iv. p. 8). 


it which made itself felt, but rather of the sublime hope for 

a future deliverance which the author of Dauiel never lost 

sight of. 

Mention of Daniel in the N. T. 

The allusion of our Lord to a prophecy contained in the 
Book of Dauiel (Matth. xxiv. 15) has led many to assert that 
on this account only the authenticity of the work should not 
be questioned by true believers. This reference which is to 
the "abomination of desolation spoken of by Dauiel the Prophet" 
shows merely that Jesus was referring to the book by its 
commonly accepted title. If the conservative critics could 
prove that our Lord meant his hearers to understand by these 
words that the quotation He was uttering was actually an 
expression used by the Prophet described in our book and 
that He intended thereby to stamp the work as an authentic 
production of a Prophet named Daniel who lived at the Baby- 
lonian court, then every true believer in the infallibility of 
the utterances of Jesus would be in duty bound to accept 
His dictum as final. Such a conclusion, however, is by no 
means justified by the context in which our Lord's words 
appear. In His vivid prophecy of the impending fall of 
Jerusalem, He simply made use of au apt quotation from a 
well-known work in order to illustrate and give additional 
force to His own prediction. We are no more bound by this 
citation to consider Daniel to be the work of a prophet who 
was contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar than we are com- 
pelled by the similar allusion of our Lord to the "Sign of the 
Prophet Jonah" (Matth. xii. 39-40) to regard the book attri- 
buted to that person as a genuine production of Jonah Ben 
Amittai the ancient prophet of Gath-Hepher who lived in the 
reign of Amaziah king of Judah in the eighth century B. C. 
(2 Kings xiv. 25). 

The true Significance of Daniel. 
To assert, furthermore, with some excellent Christian divines 
that with the authenticity of the Book of Daniel the whole 


prophetical structure of the Old Testament stands or falls is 
as illogical as the statement of Newton that he who denies 
Daniel's prophecies denies Christianity. If the book be pro- 
perly understood it must not only be admitted that the author 
made no pretence at exactness of detail, but also that his 
"prophecies" were never intended to be other than an histori- 
cal resume clothed for the sake of greater literary vividness 
in a prophetic garb. It is very difficult to see how such a 
conclusion affects the authenticity of utterances of other au- 
thors which were really meant to be predictions of the future. 
If viewed in the proper light, the work of the author of 
Daniel cannot be called a forgery, but merely a consolatory 
political pamphlet, and it should certainly be possible for 
intelligent Christians to consider the Book just as powerful, 
viewed according to the author's evident intention, as a con- 
solation to God's people in their dire distress at the time of 
Antiochus Epiphanes, as if it were, what an ancient but 
mistaken tradition has made it, really an accurate account of 
events which took place at the close of the Babylonian period. 


Owing to the great paucity of data at our disposal, the 
question regarding the origin of the historical material of the 
Book of Daniel is a very difficult one. 

Daniel's Birth and Family. 
For example, there are no means of ascertaining anything 
definite concerning the origin of the hero Daniel himself who 
appears as the central figure of the entire work. The account 
of the first chapter has been generally misunderstood. We arc 
told in i. 3 that the king commanded the Chief Eunuch to 
bring "certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, 


and of the nobles" to serve in the coiu-t. Many commentators 
have considered this to mean that some of the children were 
of the royal Judaean line and of Jewish noble families, an 
interpretation which is by no means justified by the wording 
of the passage. It is highly likely that the author simply 
meant to state that, while some of these youths were Jews, the 
others were of high rank in Babylonia. There is nothing in 
the text to indicate that he meant to convey the idea that 
they were of Jewish royal and noble stock. Some expositors, 
however, misled by this passage argued that the author of the 
Book was probably familiar with 2 Kings xxiv. 14-15 where 
it is definitely stated that Nebuchadnezzar carried away from 
Jerusalem all the Jewish nobility as well as the immediate 
family of king Jehoiakim. Josephus l , never doubting the 
historical accuracy of Daniel, made the Prophet a relative of 
Zedekiah and consequently of Jehoiakim 2 , a conclusion which 
he apparently drew from the same passage, i. 3. Pseudo-Epi- 
phauius 3 , on the other hand, undoubtedly having the same 
source in mind, thought that Daniel was the son of a Jewish 
noble family. The true Epiphanius 4 even gives the name of 
his father as Sabaan 5 and asserts that the Prophet was born 
in upper Beth-Horon, a village near Jerusalem. 

Daniel's Life and Death. 
The after life and death of the Seer are as obscure 'as 
his origin. The Biblical account gives little aid, as it is ex- 
pressly stated that Daniel continued until the first year of 

1 Ant. x. 10, 1. 2 Mattaniah or Zedekiah was the brother of 
Jehoiakim according to 2 Kings xxiv. 17, but according to 2 Chron. 
xxxvi. 10, he was the brother of Jehoiakin or Jeconiah. It has been 
suggested that Josephus may have confused his Zedekiah with the 
prince Zedekiah ben Hananiah, mentioned Jer. xxxvi. 12 (so Bertholdt, 
p. 4, but cf. Havernick, p. 20). 3 C. x. on the Prophets. 4 Panarion, 
Adv. Haeres. 55, 3. 5 Havernick derives this from "p'saX. According 
to the Persian apocryphal version of Daniel, referred to above p. 2, 
Daniel was one of the sons of Jehoiakin or Jeconiah (see Zotenberg 
op. cit. p. 38). 


Cyrus, but we find C. x. 1, one of his visions, dated in the 
third year of that king. According to certain Rabbinical authori- 
ties 6 , Dauicl went back to Jerusalem with the return of the 
captivity 7 , as he is supposed to have been one of the founders 
of the mythical Great Synagogue. Other traditions affirm that 
he died in Babylonia and was buried in the royal vault 8 , 
while the Jewish traveller Benjamin of Tudela (12 th century 
A. D.) was shown his tomb in Susa which is also mentioned 
by Abulfarag. A good illustration of "Daniel's Tomb" at Susa 
will be found in Riehm's Handworterbuch des biblischen 
Alterthums, p. 1588. It is perfectly clear that the writer of 
the Book of Daniel did not even pretend to give a sketch of 
the Prophet's career, but contented himself with merely mak- 
ing him the central figure, about which to group the more or 
less disconnected narratives and accounts of visions. In view 
of this evident fact and also of the generally inaccurate character 
of all the historical statements in the work, there is really no 
evidence even to prove the existence of the Daniel described 
in the book bearing his name. 

The Author's Source for this Character. 

The question at once arises as to where the Maccabaean 
writer could have got the name Daniel and his idea of such 
a personality. It is hardly probable, in view of certain con- 
siderations about to be examined, that he could have invented 
both name and character out of whole cloth. 
The Daniel of Ezekiel. 

There is an allusion in the work of the Prophet Ezekiel to a 
Daniel 9 whom he places as a great personality between the two 

8 Maiinon in Heretii Demonstratio Evang. Paris. 1679. p. 231 ; Elias 
Levita in Massoreth ham - Massoreth, Semmler's translation, Halle, 1778. 
pp. 18; 25. 7 This idea may have arisen from i. 21, where it is 
stated that Daniel continued until the first year of Cyrus, e. g. the 
year when the first detachment of the Jews probably returned to 
Palestine. 8 For example, in the Martyrologium Romanum, Babylon 
is given as the probable place for his death. 9 Ezekiel xiv. 14; 20; 
xxviii. 3. 


well-known figures of Noah and Job. Ezekiel who was probably 
a man of ripe age at the time of the Babylonian deportation 
of the Jews would certainly not have mentioned a mere boy 
in the same breath with two such characters, much less have 
put him between them 10 . Certain commentators, however, have 
tried to see a peculiar appropriateness in such a juxtaposi- 
tion 11 . Thus, it has been ingeniously suggested 12 that at the 
time of Ezekiefs first mention of Daniel, thirteen or fourteen 
years had passed since the deportation of the young Prophet, 
ten since his appointment to the position of Head Magus, as 
well as six 13 of common exile of Ezekiel and Daniel, and 
that during this time Darnel could have had ample oppor- 
tunity to display his wisdom and win the distinction which 
Ezekiel gives him. Even if this be granted, it is still diffi- 
cult to see how the Daniel of the Babylonian captivity could 
have deserved mention in such strange company and in such 
a position. 

It seems probable that Ezekiel could not have considered 
his Daniel as a contemporary of his own, but, owing to the 
position given him between two Patriarchs, rather as some 
celebrated ancient prophet. Who this ancient prophet was 
cannot possibly be known, as there is not a single trace to 
guide research as to his origin and date. There can be no 
doubt, however, that he was as celebrated to Ezekiel as were 
both Noah and Job, which may be an indication that he is 
really a well-known character under the disguise of another 
name, although this is of course the merest conjecture 14 . 

10 See in this connection Keuss, op. cit. p. 593; Hitzig, p. viii, and 
Bertholdt, p. 7. n Pusey, Dan. p. 149, says that Job was put last, 
because his outward lot was more akin to what Ezekiel had to predict. 
Delitzsch RE. iii. p. 271 thought that Noah belonged to the old world, 
Daniel to the present and Job to the ideal age; hence the order (see 
also Max Werther, Abh. u. d. Bab. Gefangenschaft 7tes Programm d. 
Evang. Furstenschule zu Pless). 12 Kranichfeld, Dan. pp. 10—11; 
Keil, Dan. p. 3. ia Ez. xl. 1. 14 For Example, Hitzig, p. viii, sug- 
gested that the Daniel of Ezekiel may be Melchizedek. 


A Similar Case in the New Testament. 

The analogy of the reference in the New Testament to Jesus 
along with Moses and Elias 15 and with Job 16 has been cited 
by some as a parallel case, but it should be noticed that in 
no instance is Jesus mentioned between the two older names 
as is the Daniel of Ezekiel. 

Not identical with the Maceabaean Daniel. 

It is impossible to identify this mysterious Daniel, who is 
ranked by Ezekiel as one of the patriarchs, with the hero of 
the Maccabsean Book of Daniel 17 , and it is eyen difficult, in 
the absence of all records, to establish any connection be- 
tween them. The most that can be said in this connection 
is that there may really have been a spiritual leader of the 
captive Jews who lived at the Babylonian court and who was 
either actually named Daniel, perhaps after the unknown 
patriarch mentioned in Ezekiel, or to whom the same name 
had been given in the course of tradition by an historical con- 
fusion of persons 18 . Following this hypothesis, it must be 
assumed that the fame of this Judseo-Babylonian prophet had 
been handed down through the unclear medium of oral tra- 
dition until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when some gifted 
Jewish author, feeling the necessity of producing a work which 
should console his people in their affliction under the perse- 
cutions of that monarch, seized upon the personality of this 
Seer, who lived during a time of persecution having many 
points of resemblance to the era of Antiochus Epiphanes, and 
moulded some of the legends then extant about the. life and 
activity of the Prophet into such a form as would be best 
suited to a didactic purpose. 

15 Matth. xvii. 4; Luke, ix. 33. 16 James, v. 11. " In the addi- 
tions to the LXX., Pseudo - Daniel , xiv. 1, Daniel has been confused 
with the Levite mentioned Ezra viii. 2; Neh. x. 0. The Prophet is 
called legevg ovouun Juvirfk vi6$ 'Jpda (see also Zockler, Dan. p. 9). 
,s Quite a number of expositors disbelieve entirely in the existence of 
such a person as Daniel, considering that all the accounts referring 
to him were the fabrication of the Maccabrcan author of the Book. 


The Material in the Narrative Chapters. 

With regard to the origin of the stories embodied in the 
narrative chapters, but little is known definitely. 
An Imitation of Genesis. 

The account in C ii of the promotion of Daniel to be gover- 
nour of Babylon as a reward for his correct interpretation of 
Nebuchadnezzar's dream is very probably an imitation of the 
story of Joseph in Gen. xl.-xu 19 . The points of resemblance 
are very striking. In both accounts we have a young Hebrew 
raised by the favour of a heathen king to great political pro- 
minence, owing to his extraordinary God-given ability as sooth- 
sayer and interpreter of dreams. It is noticeable also that in 
both versions the heathen astrologers make the first attempt at 
solving the difficulty which results in ignominious failure, where- 
upon the pious Israelite, after being summoned to the royal 
presence, in both cases through the friendly intervention of a 
court official, triumphantly explains the matter to the king's 


Babylonian Traditions. 

It can be said with certainty regarding the narrative chapters 

that the fundamental traditions on which the following data 

are based descended from Babylonian times, although the 

author of Daniel received them in a highly distorted form and 

employed them merely as a kernel, about which to construct 

narratives illustrative of the moral lesson which he wished 

to inculcate: — 

1. The writer's use of the name of Nebuchadnezzar and his 
statements regarding that king show that he had a dim idea 
of the extensive power and world-wide celebrity of the great- 
est of Babylonian monarchs. 

2. The tale of the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar in C. iv. may 
be based on an actual occurrence in the great king's life. 

3. The use of the name Belshazzar and parts of the story in 
C. v. concerning his fate have also an underlying basis of fact. 

19 Stade, Geschichte, ii. p. 324. 


4. Finally, the introduction in C. v. of the Queen Mother 
at the feast of Belshazzar shows the survival until Maccabrean 
times of a tradition regarding an actual personage who was 
alive shortly before the capture of Babylon by the Persians. 

1. The Personality of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel and 
the Developement of the great King's Power. 

Regarding the author's idea of Nebuchadnezzar's power, it 
may be inferred from the wording of the decrees which he 
attributes to that monarch, that the fame of the extent of the 
Babylonian influence during his reign had descended to the 
Maccabeean period, for it is stated in Daniel that each pro- 
clamation was* issued to "all peoples, nations and races (lang- 
uages) that dwell in the earth". 

It is now well-known from the cuneiform inscriptions 
dating from the later Babylonian empire that the very summit 
of the Semitic power in Western Asia was reached during 
the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 

The Assyrian Conquests. 
The later kings of Assyria, especially since the accession 
of the usurper Sargon in 722 B. C. (the year of the fall of Sa- 
maria), had been constantly engaged in extending and strength- 
ening the conquests which had been begun as early as 1100 
B. C. by the first Assyrian Tiglathpileser. When Sargon came 
to the throne in Nineveh, he received as an inheritance from 
Tiglathpileser iii. (745-727), one of his immediate predecessors, 
the whole of Mesopotamia, including all the Babylonian pro- 
vinces on the South which had long been subject to the As- 
syrian overlordship, as well as most of the country now known 
as Armenia on the north, the greater part of Media on the 
east, and all of Syria-Palestine on the west. Not content 
with this immense territory, which of course required constant 
attention to keep intact, Sargon pushed his conquests still 
farther into what is now called Asia Minor and even sub- 
jugated the greater pint of the island of Cyprus. His two 


successors Esarhaddon (681-668) and Asurbanipal (668-626) 
extended their Median territory still further on the east, 
completed the conquest of Cyprus and subdued the whole of 
lower Egypt. When in 606, under one of Asurbanipal's suc- 
cessors, Nineveh was razed to the ground by Cyaxares and 
his infuriated Medes, who had been chafing for years under 
the odious Assyrian tyranny, the overlordship of the Assyrian 
tributary states did not, as one might expect, pass to the 
victorious Median dynasty which was not yet sufficiently 
developed in civilization to be able to manage such a terri- 
tory, but was immediately inherited by Assyria's most power- 
ful and nearest vassal, the older Semitic state of Babylonia, 
whose throne was ascended in 604 by Nebuchadnezzar, the 
son of Nabopolassar. 

Nebuchadnezzar's Glory. 
This monarch (604-561) was able not only to keep intact 
the empire which he had inherited, which may be seen, for 
example, by his vigorous suppression of the rebellious Judsean 
vassal kings Jehoiakim and Zcdekiah, but also found suffi- 
cient leisure practically to rebuild the city of Babylon which 
he made the wonder of the then known world 20 . Nearly 
every cuneiform document now extant dating from this mon- 
arch's reign treats, not of conquest and warfare, like those 
of his Assyrian predecessors, but of the building and restor- 
ation of the walls, temples and palaces of his beloved city 
of Babylon. The words, therefore, found in Daniel iv. 30 
which the author put into the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar are 
literally the truth. "Is not this great Babylon that I have 
built for the house of my kingdom by the might of ray power 
and for the honour of my majesty?" Such a sentence might 
well have been uttered by the greatest of Babylonian monarch s 
and it cannot be denied that we have here, as well as in 
the general conception of Nebuchadnezzar's character through- 

20 Cf. Herodotus, i. 192tf.,^on the Babylonians. 


out the book, a glimmering of true history shining trough 
the obscurity of the confused traditions employed by the 
author of Daniel. 

2. The strange Insanity of Nebuchadnezzar. 
The story of Nebuchadnezzar's temporary lunacy next de- 
mands our attention. The author states (iv. 31, flP.) that the 
great king, as a punishment for his rebellion against the Most 
High, "was driven from men, and did eat grass like oxen, 
and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs 
were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' 
claws". In the course of time, however, Nebuchadnezzar's 
reason was restored to him and he returned to his throne 
with a better understanding of the divine power. 

Two Parallel Accounts. 
There are two parallel accounts relating to a mental disorder 
of Nebuchadnezzar which should be cited in this connection. 

a) Josephus, quoting from the works of the Babylonian 
priest Berossus, refers to the illness of Nebuchadnezzar in 
the following strange words: "Nebuchadnezzar, falling into a 
state of weakness, altered his (manner of) life when he had 
reigned 43 years; whereupon his son Evilmerodach obtained 
the kingdom" 21 . In other words, that the great king became 
in some way disabled and that for this reason he was suc- 
ceeded by his son before his death. There is no allusion 
here to a subsequent restoration of Nebuchadnezzar's power, 
nor is the peculiar nature of his state of disability described, 
both of which details are supplied by the Book of Daniel. 

b) Besides this, Eusebius, who is rightly known as the 
father of Church history, relates the following marvellous 
stoiy of Nebuchadnezzar's end, quoting from the earlier author- 
ity Abydenus 22 : "On a certain occasion the king went up 
to the roof of his palace and after prophesying the coming of 

21 'Eftneaojv si's aq^waxiap ju£T7j'AuS«to roV ptav. Cf. Apion, i. 20. 
M Nothing is known of the date or nationality of Abydenus. 


the Persian Cyrus and his conquest of Babylon, suddenly 

disappeared" 2 *. 

Points of Agreement. 
There is one point of agreement between all three records 
and two between the non-Biblical accounts; viz., all three 
stories agree that Nebuchadnezzar was at one time seriously 
affected either bodily or mentally, while Berossus and Aby- 
denus are at one in the statement that this disturbance was 
directly followed by his disappearance, e. g. retirement from 
public life. The Biblical account and the version of Aby- 
denus differ regarding the nature and effect of the king's 
illness, while the story of Berossus is strictly non-committal 
in this particular. 

An Historical Basis for the Legend. 
In view of the comparatively trustworthy character of the 
record of Berossus 24 , as well as of the partial agreement as 
to this matter of three accounts of widely different origin, 
we are forced to believe, in spite of the silence on the sub- 
ject of the extant cuneiforhi documents, that there is some 
basis of historical fact for this strange statement of the author 
of Daniel. Nothing is known regarding the death of Nebu- 
chadnezzar, nor indeed is there any record in the cuneiform 
literature of his son Amel-Marduk (the Evilmerodach of 
2 Kings) except three contracts which are dated in the first 
year of the reign of this king. His name is mentioned in 
the Old Testament as the king who released the captive 

23 Eusebius, Praep. ix. 41; Chron. i. 59. 2i Berossus was a Baby- 
lonian priest of Bel, probably a contemporary of Alexander the Great. 
He wrote an extensive work on the manners and beliefs of the Baby- 
lonians which has unfortunately been lost. The extracts and quo- 
tations from his work which are now extant all occur in the works 
of later writers, probably at third hand. There can be little doubt 
that Berossus had access to and was able to read the cuneiform 
records, because the data given in the fragments of his work are quite 
generally confirmed by a comparison with the recently discovered 
cuneiform inscriptions. 

Prince, Daniel. 3 


Judsean monarch Jehoiakin from prison (2 Kings xxv. 27). 
The Ptolemaean Canon also mentions his name, stating that 
he reigned two years, while Berossus alludes to him as the 
son of Nebuchadnezzar and a dissolute worthless character. 
There is nowhere any record as to whether he begau to reign 
during his father's life-time, nor any account regarding the 
death of Nebuchadnezzar. It is not impossible, however, that 
the great king was afflicted by a form of insanity which in- 
capacitated him from governing and necessitated the accession 
of his son. In fact, the partial agreement of the three accounts 
renders it highly probable that the king really became insane. 
The agreement of Berossus and Abydenus that Ins insanity 
was followed, according to one account by the accession of 
Evilmerodach, and according to the other version by his dis- 
appearance, would lead us to believe that the disease which 
attacked Nebuchadnezzar was the cause of his retirement. 
The account in Darnel which makes his insanity come upon 
him as a punishment for Ins contumacy in refusing to recog- 
nize the God of the Jews, and which states that the great 
king was eventually restored to' his senses, after which act 
of divine mercy he immediately acknowledged the power of 
Daniel's God, is undoubtedly the Jewish version of the tra- 
dition. The necessity of restoring the king to health is of 
course obvious to every one who recognizes the didactic aim 
of the Book of Daniel, so that we must consider tins touch, 
as well as the idea that the insanity was a divine punish- 
ment sent to chasten Nebuchadnezzar, as embellishments intro- 
duced by the Maccabeean author. 

Character of the Disease. 
The disease as described by the writer of Daniel is the 
form of Melancholia known as Insania ZoantJiropica 25 , un- 
doubtedly Identical with the mediaeval "lycanthropy", in which 

25 See Trusen, .Sitten, Gebrauche und Krankheiten der alt in 
Bebraer. 1853. 


the sufferer, imagining himself to be an animal, generally of 
a ferocious nature such as a wolf, roamed about the forests 
in a wild state, often actually killing and devouring human 
beings. A somewhat milder form of this disease is not un- 
known to alienists at the present day 26 . 

3. Belshazzar. 
The author's statements regarding the ancestry and death 
of Belshazzar are a curious mixture of true and false tradi- 
tions. Previous to the ' discovery of the cuneiform .inscrip- 
tions, it was very generally considered that the name Bel- 
shazzar was invented by the author of Daniel 27 . It is now 
universally admitted, however, that the name of the person 
mentioned in the fifth chapter as king of Babylon is identical 
with the Babylonian form Belsarugur which bas been discov- 
ered in the cuneiform documents 68 as the name of the eldest 
son of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon 29 . 

References in the Inscriptions. 
Among the various allusions to this prince in the cunei- 
form literature, the most important are those in the two in- 
scriptions of Ur, and in the annals of Nabonidus, which is 
the chief document relating to the fall of Babylon 30 . As 

26 Cf. Welcher, Allgem. Ztschr. fur Psychiatrie, ix. Heft 1, and for- 
this entire question, Schrader, Die Sage vom Wahnsinn Nebukadnezars, 
Jahrbiicher fur Protestantische Theologie, vii. pp. 629 ff. 27 So 

v. Lengerke, Dan. p. 204; Hitzig, Dan. p. 75. 28 Sir Henry Rawlinson 
in the Athenceum. March, 1854, p. 341, "A letter from Bagdad." See 
also Oppert, ZDMG. viii. p. 598. 29 The name occurs in the in- 
scriptions as that of probably two other persons: a) In Keilinschrift- 
liche Bibliothek, ii. p. 60, 1. 59, where the ruler of the city of the 
Kisesi, one of the tribes conquered by Sargon, is called Belsarugur. 
b) The Belsarugur son of Baldtu mentioned by Pinches in the New 
York Independent, 1889, Aug. 15, is probably not, as he thinks, the 
son of Nabonidus but of some ordinary person, possibly of some one 
named after the king's son (?). For the proper name Baldtu, see 
Peiser, Babylonische Vertrage, No. ix. 1. 2; ZA. vii. p. 66, 2. 30 See 
Additional Note iii. 



the reference in the small inscription 31 of Ur is the most 
complete and consequently the most important, a translation 
and transcription are here given. In this document Naboni- 
dus speaks as follows: 

Baldtu sa time ruquti Life for long days 

ana siriqti surqdm give as a gift to me 

u sa Belsarugur and cause to dwell 

maru restu in the heart of Belshazzar 

git libbiya my first born son, 

puluxti ilutika rabUi the offspring of my body, 

libbus suskinma reverence for thy great God- 

d irsd head. May he ne'er incline 

xiteti to sin, 

Idle baldtu lishi may he be fdled with the 

fidness of life. 
In the second column of the great inscription of Ur 32 , the 
king, after describing the restoration of the temple of Ebarra 
and offering a devout petition to Samas, the sun-god, that the 
sacred shrines may now remain uninjured, closes with a prayer 
for his own well being and with a supplication for Belsarugur 
his first-born in almost the same words as the above. 

Why Belsarucur is mentioned here. 
Why this especial mention of the king's son occurs in these 
inscriptions of Ur is doubtful. It may be conjectured with 
Tiele 33 that Belsarugur was governour of this province in 
Southern Babylonia and had Ur as Ins capital, or it is possible 
that Nabonidus attached some special religious importance to 

31 Text, 1. R. 68, col. ii. 22-23, and Winckler's Keilschrifttexte, 
p. 43. Translation, JRAS. xix. (1861), pp. 195 if.; repeated also, RP. v. 
pp. 143 ff. , Talbot: Oppert, Expedition en Mesopotamie, i. p. 262. 
32 KB. iii. pt. 2, p. 82: Belsarugur maru restu . . . cit (?) libbiya suriku 
umesu, a irsd xiteti, "Belshazzar my first born . . . the offspring of my 
body, make long his days, may he not incline to sin." Peiser tran- 
scribes in the KB. hi (?) ux bi a, probably git (?) libbiya. 33 Ge- 
s<;hichte, p. 463. 


the cult of the moon-god local in this place. The petition 
here that the king's son might not incline to sin may perhaps 
indicate that the prince had in some May offended the pre- 
judices of the religious classes, who, as is well known, super- 
vised the preparation of the inscriptions. From the allusion 
to the prince in the annals of Nabonidus it appears that the 
son of the king was a number of years 34 with the lords and 
army in Akkad, most probably in the capacity of commander- 
in-chief, while his father was residing in Tenia free from the 
cares of government. It is worthy of notice here that in the 
annals the name Belsarngur does not occur, the allusion being 
merely to the 'son of the king'; but there can be little doubt 
that the reference is to the first-born. 

Other Allusions in the Inscriptions. 
In addition to these three passages from the historical 
literature, there are numbers of references to Belsarugur in 
the contract tablets, none of which, however, throw any further 
important historical light on his character 35 . 

Belsarucur an important Person. 
As Belsarugur is the only king's son mentioned with such 
prominence in the Babylonian inscriptions 36 , and as it is espe- 
cially stated that the lords of the kingdom and army were 
with him (probably under his supervision) in Akkad, it seems 
highly probable that he was a very important personage in 

34 Annals, col. ii. 5, during the seventh year of Nabonidus; col. ii. 10, 
during the 10th year. See also col. ii 19 and 23. 35 See Additional 
Note iv. 36 Compare, however, Nabopol. col. ii. 69. KB. iii. pt. 2, 4, 
mention of Nebuchadnezzar; and col. iii. 6 ff . of Nabusulisir, his brother. 
In later documents mention is made of Cambyses, son of Cyrus, as 
co-regent and king of Babylon during his father's lifetime. See Tiele, 
Geschichte, pp. 483; 484 and BA. iii. pp. 445—6. In the inscription 
of Antiochus Soter, V. R. 66, 25 (KB. iii. pt. 2, p. 138, 25), mention is 
made of Seleucus, his son and vice -king. Delattre, Solomon, Asur- 
banipal et Baltasar, 1883, p. 5, compares, in connection with Belsarugur, 
the cases of Solomon and Asurbdnipul , both of whom exercised the 
vice -regal dignity during the life of their respective fathers. 


the government, a theory which is strengthened by the fact 
that his father, Nabonidus, was more of an archaeologist than 
a ruler, and far more interested in the discovery of a for- 
gotten site than in the affairs of his kingdom. Belsanujur, 
therefore, as some critics have argued 37 , may have really been 
co-regent ; but, as will be seen subsequently, the author of the 
Book of Daniel could not, as they thought, have had this idea 
in mind in calling liim king of Babylon. 

Differences between the Book of Daniel and the Inscriptions. 
Comparing the Belsarugur of the inscriptions with Belshaz- 
zar of the Book of Daniel, the following important differences 
are apparent. The former was the son of the last king of 
Babylon, but never reigned except possibly as co-regent, while 
the latter is distinctly called the last king and the son of 
Nebuchadnezzar. There can be little doubt that both of these 
statements were made by the author of Daniel in perfect good 

The Author of Daniel thought Belshazzar was the ,last king. 

A number of commentators 38 have sought to prove that the 

Belshazzar of the Book of Daniel was not necessarily meant 

37 Floigl, Cyrus und Herodot, p. 24; Andrea, Beweis des Glaubens, 
1888. p. 249; Smith, Dictionary of the Bible; Meinhold, Dissertation, 
p. 30. n. 2, etc. 38 So Marsham, Canon chron., pp. 596 ff.; Conring, 
Advers. Chron. c. xiii; Harenberg, Dan. ii. pp. 454 ff.; Hofmann, Die 
70 Jahre d. Jeremia u. d. 70 Jahrwochen d. Daniel, p. 44; Havernick, 
Neue kritische Unters., pp. 72 ff. ; M. v. Niebuhr, Geschichte Assurs u. 
Babels, p. 42; Wolff, Stud. u. Krit., 1858, p. 684, note a; Zundel, Dan. 
p. 33; Unger, Kyaxares u. Astyages pp. 28—9. Keil, Dan. p. 145, 
although knowing of the discovery of the name in the inscriptions, 
thought that the BcUarugur, son of Nabonidus, must have been named 
after Belshazzar - Evilmerodach , son of Nebuchadnezzar. Quatremere, 
Annales de la Philosophie Chretienne, 1838, advanced the theory in 
support of Jer. xxvii. 7 that Nabonidus as an usurper, associated with 
himself Belshazzar, son of Evilmerodach and grandson of Nebuchad- 
nezzar, in order to strengthen his position. The view that Belshazzar 
and Nabonidus were identical was held by Josephus (Ant. x. 11, 2), 
where he states that "Baltasar" was called "Naboandclus" by the 
Babylonians. Cf. also "Contra Apionem," i. c. 20. This idea was 


by the author as the last king of Babylon, but was intended 
for Evilmerodach, son of Nebuchadnezzar 39 ; a view advanced 
in support of the statement in v. 2, that Belshazzar was the 
son of Nebuchadnezzar. Following this theory, some consid- 
ered Belshazzar merely a secondaiy name 40 . It is difficult 
to understand, however, how the author could make Daniel 
declare to the Babylonian monarch that his kingdom was about 
to pass to the Medes and Persians, unless the prophecy were 
intended for the last king. There would be little point in 
such a warning, if it were given a generation before its actual 
fulfillment. We may compare in this connection the indifference 
of Hezekiah to the prophecy of Isaiah of the ultimate depor- 
tation to Babylon and degradation there of the Jewish royal 
family. In Isaiah xxxix. 8, Hezekiah said "Good is the word 
of the Lord, which thou hast spoken . . . for there shall be 
peace and truth in my days". In addition to this, it is evi- 
dent that if the author of Daniel did not really regard his 
Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon, but as Evilmerodach, 
he must have omitted without mention a period of twenty 
years between the death of the latter and the foreign supre- 
macy ; i. e. that between the two contiguous and closely related 
statements of the death of Belshazzar and the accession of 
Darius the Mede, the reigns of several kings were passed 

followed by J. D. Michaelis, Dan. p. 46; Bertholdt, Dan. p. 344; Bleek, 
Kirms, Hengstenberg; Havernick, Dan. p. 172; Ewald Gesch., v. p. 85, 
note; Herzfeld, Gesch., i. p. 154; Browne, Ordo Saeclorum, p. 178. — 
Sulpitius Severus, Hist., ii. p. 6, considered Belsbazzar a younger 
brother of Evilmerodacb , both being sons of Nebuchadnezzar. — 
Scaliger (see Isagogicorum chronologite canonum libri tres., iii. p. 190) 
and Calvisius, who were followed by Ebrard, Coram, zur Offenbarung 
Johannis, p. 45, and Delitzsch RE. 2 , iii. p. 472, identified him with 
Laborosoarchod (Labasimarduk), son of Neriglissar. 

39 The list of the later Babylonian kings is as follows: Nabopolassar, 
625-604; Nebuchadnezzar, 604-561; Amel-Marcluk (Pvdlmerodach), 
561-559; Labasi-Marduk, 559: reigned only 9 months; Neriglissar. 
559-555; Nabonidus, 555-538; Cyrus took Babylon, 538. 40 So 
Ziindel, Dan. p. 26; Niebuhr, Gesch. p. 30, etc. 


over in silence. That an author should do this knowingly 
without a word of explanation, as some writers have sought 
to show, seems a preposterous supposition 41 . It appears per- 
fectly clear that the Biblical author regarded Belshazzar as 
the last king of Babylon before the coming of the Modes and 

Belshazzar not Co-Regent. 
As remarked above, certain critics have held the view that 
because Belsarugur may have been co-regent with his father, 
the Biblical writer, knowing this, gave his Belshazzar the title 
of king. A conclusive answer to this has been given by Professor 
Driver who states 42 that there are certain contract tablets 
published by Strassmaier and bearing date continuously from 
the reign of Nabonidus to that of Cyrus, which show that 
neither Belshazzar nor Darius the Mede (supposing the latter 
to have been historical) could have received the title of king 
in any capacity whatsoever. If Belshazzar really had been 
co-regent, however, w r e would not expect to find him with the 
unqualified title "King of Babylon" without any further ex- 
planation. Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, was undoubtedly co- 
regent and bore the title King of Babylon during his father's 
life-time, but in the contract which dates from his first year 
it is expressly stated that Cyrus was still "king of the lands". 
This statement should be contrasted with Dan. viii. 1, where 
reference is made to the third year of "Belshazzar, King of 
Babylon", without any mention of another over-ruler. Had the 
author of Daniel really believed that Belshazzar was co-regent 
it is reasonable to suppose that he would in some way have 
qualified the title "King of Babylon". 

41 Cf. Ztindel and Kranichfeld, Dan. pp. 25; 28, who believed that 
Belshazzar was Evilmerodach , and explained this silence regarding 
the intervening period and the connection of two statements so far 
apart, by supposing that they were brought together because the 
latter was the sequence of the former! M Introduction 3 , p. xxii. 



Belshazzar not the Son of Nebuchadnezzar. 
Furthermore, the statement that Belshazzar was the son of 
Nebuchadnezzar shows conclusively that the historical know- 
ledge of the author of Daniel was considerably at fault. Certain 
commentators have endeavoured to prove that this statement 
may be in accordance with the facts, i. e. that "son" here is 
to be translated "descendant" or "grandson". It is of course 
perfectly true, as Dr. Pusey has remarked, that ax and p 
(Aramaic -o) are used, 'not only of the actual father and son, 
but also of the grandfather or grandson, and ancestor or de- 
scendant in general 43 . The way, however, in which Nebuchad- 
nezzar is referred to in the fifth chapter shows plainly that 
the author could have had no knowledge of the intervening 
kings, but considered Nebuchadnezzar as the actual father of 
Belshazzar. In the first place, the narrative of chapter v. 
follows directly on the chapters concerning Nebuchadnezzar and 
begins with the unqualified assertion that Belshazzar was the son 
of that monarch; and secondly, the remark of Belshazzar in 
v. 13, "so thou art Daniel .... whom the king my father brought 
from Judsea", would be ambiguous if the king were referring 
to his grandfather or an ancestor. In this case we would ex- 
pect the repetition of the name Nebuchadnezzar to indicate 
to which "father" the king was alluding. But even if the words 
"father" and "son" of the fifth chapter really were used for 
"grandson" and "grandfather", there is no proof that Belsarucur 
was in any way related to Nebuchadnezzar 44 . Nabonidus, his 

43 Compare Pusey, Dan. p. 346. There is no distinctive word, either 
in Hebrew or Aramaic for grandfather or grandson. In later Hebrew, 
Buxtorf gives ■jgt, "grandfather", fern, itiftl. 44 Auberlen, Dan., p. 16, 
thought that Belshazzar was called son of Nebuchadnezzar, just as 
Omri was considered by the Assyrians as father of the house of Israel. 
"Father", however, cannot be used of the unrelated predecessors, as 
Pusey (Dan., p. 347) sought to show. Wherever it is used in this 
connection, as in the above cited case, it is an error as to the real 
relationship. The passage in Sargon which Pusey cites in support of 
his view, believing that Sargon was no relation to the preceding 
kings, is very doubtful, and probably does not contain the words 


father, was the son of a nobleman, Nababalatsuiqbi* 5 , and was 
probably a leader in the conspiracy against his predecessor, 
Labasi-Marduk. As far as is known, he was not related to 
any of the preceding kings. Had Nabonidus been descended 
from Nebuchadnezzar he could hardly have failed to boast of 
such a connection with the greatest Babylonian monarch, yet 
in none of his inscriptions does he trace his descent beyond 
his father. Some scholars have tried to obviate the difficulty 
by supposing that Nabonidus, in order to strengthen his dynasty, 
married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, and that in this way 
BeUarugur was the great king's grandson, a theory which in 
the absence of records cannot possibly be proved 46 . 

Identity of Belsarucur and Belshazzar. 

The similarity of name and the facts, first, that the historical 
BeUarugur of the inscriptions was the son of the last king 
of Babylon, while the Belshazzar of Daniel is represented as 
being himself the last king, and, secondly, that it has been 
established quite lately, that the son of Nabonidus probably 
met his death at the time of the capture of Babylon, in partial 
agreement with the Biblical account concerning Belshazzar, 
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the son of Nabonidus is 
the original of the king in the Biblical account 47 . 

sarru dbiya, "the king, iny father". Cf. Winckler's Sargon, ii., xiii., 
but also Tiele, Gesch. p. 254—5, rem. 2. 

* 8 KB. iii. pt. 2, p. 96, line 6. 46 Note that Bertholdt, Bleek, 
Kirms, Havernick, Hitzig and Schrader, are all agreed that the author 
considered Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar. 47 Talbot, Records 
of the Past, v. p. 143, doubts the identity of the Biblical Belshazzar 
with the BeUarugur of the insertions, supposing that the account is 
told of some other person with this name, which he asserts to be a 
common one. As the name BeUarugur occurs only twice in the 
published inscriptions of another than the son of Nabonidus (see 
below, Additional Note iv.), until the hypothetical "other person" be 
discovered, it is certainly consistent with good judgment to regard 
BeUarugur, son of Nabonidus and the Belshazzar of Daniel as identical. 


Main Theme of C. v. 
The force of the story would have been materially weakened 
had the author known and made use of the names of the kings 
intervening- between Nebuchadnezzar and the last king. The 
whole point of the fifth chapter, as brought out, for example, 
in the mysterious sentence, is a comparison between the great 
Nebuchadnezzar, the real founder of the Babylonian monarchy; 
the insignificant last king who had allowed the reins of govern- 
ment to slip from his feeble hands; and the coming stranger 
people who should divide between them the empire of Ne- 

4. The Queen-Mother. 

The last point which should be noticed in this connection 
is the introduction of the queen-mother, i. e. the mother of 
Nabonidus, into the story. According to v. 10, the queen 
entered the hall and suggested that the Jewish prophet Daniel 
be called to interpret the mysterious writing. There can be 
little doubt that the author was referring to the Queen Dowager, 
the mother of the last king of Babylon. The mother of Na- 
bonidus, however, died in the ninth year of his reign, as is 
now known from the Annals, c. ii. 13, just eight years before 
the occupation of Babylon by Cyrus, so that her presence at 
a feast held towards the close of the reign of Nabonidus 
would be clearly impossible. It might be argued that the 
reference hi C. v. may be to the wife of Nabonidus, the 
mother of Belsarueur, but, as we have seen, there is little 
doubt that the author of Daniel regarded Belshazzar (Befsaru- 
gur) as actually king and knew nothing of Nabonidus; so it 
seems only possible to assert that he considered the queen 
alluded to in this verse as the reigning monarch's mother, con- 
cerning whom some tradition had most probably descended to 
Maccabsean times. As the author had evidently confused the 
personality of Nabonidus and his son Belsarueur, it was only 
natural that he or the tradition which he was using should 


introduce the Queen Dowager as the mother of the latter 
whom he supposed to have been actually King. 

The Subject Matter. 
The four important points just discussed constitute all the 
data which can be said with certainty to have descended from 
the Babylonian times, e. g. from the veiy period in which the 
scene of the work is laid. The subject matter of the stories, 
on the other hand, must be considered, either to be the fabri- 
cation of the writer of the Book, or else, to consist of adapta- 
tions by the author of extremely inaccurate current popular 
tales. This latter theory seems more satisfactory than the 
former view, because, as has been shown, in at least one case 
the writer probably remodelled a scriptural account, in order 
to suit his own purpose, and it is not improbable, therefore, 
that he may have made use of other non-Biblical tales of 
whose origin nothing is known. 



The chronological errors regarding the accession of Nebu- 
chadnezzar, the contradictory statement concerning the date 
of his dream, as well as the historically incorrect assertion 
that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar have already 
been brought to the reader's notice. A special chapter, however, 
is needed to consider the most serious error into which the 
author of Daniel fell; viz., the statement (v. 31) that a Median 
king, Darius, received the kingdom after the fall of the native 
Babylonian house. 

Cyrus the Conqueror of Babylon. 

It is well known that Babylon was captured by Cyrus the 
Persian, who, some time previously, had obtained possession 
of Media and its King Astyages. It is evident too, from Daniel 


i. 21 ; x. 1. that the Biblical writer was perfectly aware of the 
existence of Cyrus. Prom his introduction of a Median Darius 
directly after the fall of Belshazzar, it must be concluded that 
the author of the Book of Daniel believed in the existence of 
a Median king between the Babylonian and Persian dynasties. 
The fact, however that in no other scriptural passage 1 is 
mention made of any Median ruler between the last king of 
Babylon and Cyrus, and the absolute silence of the most 
authoritative ancient authors regarding such a king, have cast 
serious doubt on the accuracy of the Book of Daniel in this 

Xenophon's Cyaxares. 
Various attempts have been made to vindicate the historical 
character of this Darius the Mede 2 . The opinion has been 
very generally advanced that he was identical with the Cya- 

1 See Isaiah, xliv. ff. Compare also the legend of Bel and the 
Dragon, verse 1, and the Greek translations LXX. and & of. Dan. xi. 1, 
where the name of Cyrus is substituted for that of Darius. 2 Note 
in this connection, Josephus, Ant. x. 11, 4, followed by Jerome on 
Dan. v. 1; vi. 1 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, t. v. pp. 651; 657), Josephus stated 
that Babylon was captm-ed by Darius who was the son of Astyages 
and had another name among the Greeks. Many commentators 
attempted to prove the historical character of Darius the Mede; 
Delitzsch, Havernick, Hengstenberg etc. Some expositors considered 
that this Darius was identical with Astyages; thus, Syncellus, Chron. 
p. 232, Niebuhr and more lately linger, Cyaxares und Astyages, 
pp. 26—28. Others sought to show that Darius the Mede was a near 
relative of Astyages. Compare Quatremere, Memoires sur Darius le Mede 
et Baltasar, pp. 380—381, who considered him Astyages' nephew. Ibn 
Ezra (Hitzig, Dan. p. 76), thought that he was the father-in-law of 
Cyrus. Klein, Schulz, op. cit., p. 684, and Ziindel regarded him as a 
younger brother of Astyages. Ebrard Scheuchzer, Scaliger, in the 
Appendix of his De emend, temporum and in Isagogicorum chrono- 
logiae canon um libri tres. iii. pp. 291 and 315, Petavius, and Buddeus, 
(see Zockler, p. 34) thought him identical with Nabonidus. Conring, 
Advers. Chron., c. 13, Bouhier, Dissertation sur Herodote, p. 29, Haren- 
berg, ii. pp. 434 ff., regarded him as identical with Neriglissar. 
Hengstenberg, Dan., p. 328, identified him with Bahman, who accord- 
ing to Persian tradition (Mirchond) dethroned Belshazzar and appointed 
Cyrus; but cf. v. Lengerke, Dan., pp. 224 ff. etc., etc. 


xares, son of Astyages, mentioned in Xenophon's Cyropsedia 3 , 
and in support of this theory reference has been made to the 
lines of iEschylus, Persce, 762-765:— 

"The first commander of the army was a Median. 

Then his son completed the work ; 

For his good sense governed his zeal. 

The third after him was Cyrus, a prosperous man *," etc. 
This "first Commander of the army" was supposed to refer 
to Astyages, while the "son" of the following line was under- 
stood to be the Cyaxares mentioned in the Cyropaedia 5 . As 
a further proof of identity, the age of the Darius of Daniel, 
sixty-two years, lias been cited as a point of agreement with 
the account that Cyaxares, having no hope of a male heir 
owing to his age, gave Cyrus his daughter and made him his 
successor 6 . 

Xenophon and Herodotus. 

It may be well in this connection to compare the data of 

Xenophon regarding the last Median kings with those of 

Herodotus on the same subject. It should be noticed, first, 

that Herodotus ends the Median dynasty with Astyages, while 

3 Cf. Xen. Cyrop., i. 5, 2. IlQo'toi'Tog de tov %qovov 6 t u6v ^Aarv^yijQ 
ev rolg Mtjdoig (<nofrt>>j<xx£t, 6 eJe Ki>aSaQt]g 6 zov ^Aarvuyovg ntdg, rfjg 
d't Kvqov prjTyog icdVAcpog, rijv jiccGi'Aslay eotfe rwc Mij&ojv. — For the 
opinion that Darius the Mede was identical with Cyaxares, see, for 
example, Havernick, Dan., p. 206; Keil, Dan., p. 165; Kranichfeld, 
Dan., p. 44; Lengerke, Dan., p. 220; Andrea, Beweis d. Glaubens, xxv. 
p. 57, Meinhold Dissertation, pp. 33 ff., and others mentioned abovi\ 
4 Mtjd'og yaQ r\v 6 riQwrog yye/uwv otqutov. 
.Akkos d'ixsivov ncag rod"' hgyov ^wos. 


Tgirog d'un' uvrov KvQog, evd'«i t uioi> uvt'jq. 
8 So Hitzig, Dan., p. 77; Keil, Dan., p. 165. 6 See Cyropredia, viii. 
5, 19 and Havernick, Dan., p. 206. Some commentators, who identified 
Xenophon's Cyaxares with the Median Darius, explained the silence 
of Herodotus and other writers regarding Cyaxares by supposing that 
the latter reigned too short a time to have given his name to history ; 
but this does not, of course, explain the silence of Xenophon himself 
in the Anabasis about the fabulous Cyaxares. 


Xenophon adds a son, Cyaxares. Secondly, according to Herod- 
otus, Cyrus was only related to the Median house by being 
the son of Astyages' daughter. Xenophon adds to this that 
Cyrus married the daughter of Cyaxares (his first cousin), and 
inherited with her the Median empire. Thirdly, according to 
the account of Herodotus, Cyrus took part in the rebellion 
instigated by Harpagus and conquered his grandfather Asty- 
ages, capturing Media. Herodotus' account of the conquest of 
Babylon contains no reference to any Median prince. Xeno- 
phon relates, however, that Cyrus, after quarreling with Cya- 
xares, became reconciled to him and gave him royal honors 
after the Babylonian campaign. Herodotus, as will be seen 
from the above 7 , had no knowledge of any Median king be- 
tween Astyages and Cyrus, nor of any special Median occupa- 
tion of Babylon, and in this respect his account is substantiated 
by the cuneiform records. It should be noticed that neither 
Berossus nor any other ancient author knows of a Median 
rule after the fall of Babylon 8 . 

The Cuneiform Records. 
In the annals of Nabonidus and the Cyrus Cylinder, no 
mention whatever occurs of any ruler of Media between Asty- 
ages and Cyrus 9 nor of any king of Babylon intervening be- 
tween Nabonidus and Cyrus. On the contrary, it is stated 
that Cyrus became master of Media by conquering Astyages, 
and that the troops of the King of Persia, capturing Babylon, 
took Nabonidus prisoner. Cyrus himself entered the city nine 
months later. 

7 Cf. also Ktesias, Pers. ii. 5; Diodorus Siculus, ii. 24. 8 For the 
legends regarding Cyrus in general and especially in connection with 
the account of Herodotus, cf. Floigl, Cyrus und Herodot; Bauer, Die 
Cyrussage, etc. For the chronology of Cyrus' reign see Tiele, Gesch. 
p. 483; Budinger, Die neuentdeckten Inschriften iiber Cyrus, 1884. p. 39 
and Oppert and Menant, Documents Juridiques, p. 262, and see below 
C'omm. on vii. 1. s Annals, ii. 1—4. 


Identification of Darius and Cyaxares impossible. 
Li view of these facts, it is difficult to see where an inter- 
mediate reign can be inserted, either in Media, directly after 
Astyages, or in Babylonia after Nabonidus. It should be men- 
tioned, moreover, that the Cyaxares of the Cyropsedia is not 
recorded as having ruled in Babylon, but merely to have re- 
ceived royal quarters in that city 10 . An identification between 
Darius the Mede and the Cyaxares, son of Astyages, of Xeno- 
phon's romance, is, therefore, open to the serious objection 
that the existence of this latter person, contrary to all other 
accounts, is extremely doubtful. It should be remembered 
that the narrative of the Cyropsedia resembles the Book of 
Daniel in that it was not written for an historical but for a 
moral purpose. It is enough to quote Cicero, who remarked 
"Cyrus was not described by Xenophon for the sake of giving 
a true account, but rather as the model of a just ruler" 11 . 
It is perhaps a little harsh, therefore, to characterize Xeno- 
phon's work, with Niebuhr as a "miserable and foolish ro- 
mance" 12 . With respect to the peaceful succession of Cyrus 
to the Median Empire, Xenophon, in his more historical work, 
the Anabasis, iii. 4, expressly stated that the Medes succumbed 
to the victorious arms of Cyrus. The Cyropsedia, therefore, 
representing the peaceful passage of the empire of the East 
from Astyages to Cyaxares his son, and from the latter to Cyrus, 
can only be giving some fanciful embellishment. 

Origin of Xenophon's Cyaxares. 
It is probable that this Cyaxares of the Cyropsedia arose 
from a confusion of facts. The father of Astyages was the 
famous Cyaxares, and Xenophon, by a confusion of history, 
must have believed, when writing his romance, that Astvages 
preceded Cyaxares, and that the latter was the last king of 

10 Cyroptedia, viii. 5, 17. n Ad Quintuin Pratrem, Lib. i 1, 8: 
Cyrus ille a Xenophonte non ad historiae fidew scrijrtus est, sed ad 
effiyiem justt imperii. 12 "FAnen elenden nnd lappische/n Roman" 
(Vortriige iiber alte Gesch. i. p. 116). 


his dynasty 13 . Even had this fabulous second Cyaxares existed, 
however, an identification between him and Darius the Mede, 
would be impossible, owing to the difference of the names of 
their respective fathers. The latter is called in chapter ix. 1, 
the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), a name which could never be 
considered the same as Astyages. 

The Darius of Eusebius. 

The attempt to identify the Darius of Daniel with the King 

Darius mentioned in the Armenian Chronicle of Eusebius 14 

can hardly be regarded as satisfactory. According to this 

passage it is stated that after Cyrus gave the last king of 

Babylon the province of Carmania, Darius drove out some 

one from that region; probably Nabonidus. There is every 

reason to believe that this Darius is no other than Darius 

Hystaspis 1 5 . It is possible that Nabonidus, the last king of 

Babylon, whom Cyrus dethroned in 538 B. C, and, according 

to the record of Berossus, sent to Carmania, may have remained 

in that province until the tune of Darius Hystaspis. The 

Persian king, perhaps enraged by some attempt of Nabonidus 

to rebel, may have expelled him from his province as the 

account of Megasthenes seems to state. The idea can hardly 

be entertained that there is an allusion here to an earlier 


The Coin Darik. 

Finally, the argument based on the authority of Suidas 

and Harpocration 16 , that the coin darik, was called, not after 

13 Delattre, Medes, p. 170. u .Armenian "Chron. ed. Schoene, i. 
p. 41, quoting from the account of Abydenus from Megasthenes. 
15 Even Pusey, Dan. p. 159 had to admit that this was possible; see 
also Kranichfeld, Dan. p. 45; v. Lengerke, Dan. p. 228. 16 Suidas 

said Ji(Q£ixn\ ovx uno JctQsiov rov Ss'qZov naTQog. C'Xk' txtp' 

irtoov rtt'og nakaiorsoov ^aaikecog wvojuaGfttjoav. See also Hultscli. 
Metrologicorum scriptorum reliquiae, i. p. 345, 21 ff. Cf. also Harpo- 
cration. s. v. Schol. ad Aristoph. 1 ft'.; Eccl. 602: sxhj^i/auy d's JaoEixm 
ov% w? ol nXslovc; voui^ovatv, ('end JaQeioi* rov 3(q£oi' naTQog, aXV <<<f' 
tTfQov puoiliixx;. See Hultscli, op. cit. i. p. 315, 1. 17; p. 348, 1. 20. 

I 3 rin ce, Daniel. 4 


Darius Hystaspis, as many have supposed, but after an older 
monarch of this name, probably the Median Darius of Daniel 17 , 
is also in view of modern researches extremely doubtful 18 . 

No Room for Darius the Mede. 

If there is no room in history for this Median king of the 
Book of Daniel, and it appears consequently that such a ruler 
could not have existed, but that Media passed from Astyages, 
and Babylon from Nabonidus, to Cyrus, how is it possible to 
account for this interpolation of a Median rule in the Book 
of Daniel? 

The theory is not tenable that Darius the Mede was a 
Median prince to whom Cyrus had given Babylon as a re- 
ward for his services x 9 , nor can we suppose him to have 
been a sort of satrap or vice-king 20 . The author of Daniel 
represents Darius with full kingly powers. Darius divides 
the empire into one hundred and twenty satrapies (C. vi. 1); 
he signs a royal decree making it unalterable law (C. vi. 7, 8); 
he issues a proclamation to all peoples, nations and languages 
that dwell in the earth (C. vi. 25) ; and the author dates ac- 
cording to his reign and refers nowhere to any overlord 
(C. ix. 1). 

The question may be divided into two heads: First, Why 
does the author of Daniel believe that the Medes held Baby- 
lon before the Persians? Second, Why does he call his 
Median king by the familiar name of Darius? 

The Median History. 
1. In order to answer the first question it seems necessary 
to give a very brief outline of the Median history. Accord- 
ing to the record of Herodotus, the Median kingdom was 
founded by Deiokes. If the chronology of the Greek historian 

17 See Cook's Bible Commentary, vi. p. 314; Andrea, op. cit. p. 49; 
Hengstenberg, Dan. p. 51; Havernick, Untersuch. p. 78, etc. 18 See 
Additional Note v. 19 So Vignolles, GSuvres, ii. pp. 510 It'., followed 
by Lenormant, Manual of the Ancient History of the East, p. 490. 
20 So Andrea, op. cit. p. 55; Pusey, Dan. p. 160. 


is ;it all correct, Deiokes must have founded his kingdom, as 
Tide has pointed out 21 , during the reign of Sennacherib in 
Assyria (705-681 B. C). 


This whole question, however, is very uncertain and has little 
bearing on what follows. The son of Deiokes was Phraortes, 
who is really the first historical king of Media. According to 
Herodotus he must have reigned from 646 until 625 B. C. 
Following the account of Herodotus, not content with ruling 
over the Medes alone, Phraortes marched against and subju- 
gated the Persians. Then, at the head of the combined forces 
of Persians and Medes, he set out to conquer Asia, passing 
from one people to the other. Finally, he attacked the Assy- 
rians, at that time isolated by the defection of their allies, and 
not only suffered defeat but was killed during the expedition, 
having ruled twenty-two years. His reign coincides with the 
last twenty-two years of that of Asurbanipal. As Tiele re- 
marks 21 , it is certainly striking that this latter king never 
followed the example of his predecessors in attacking Media. 
The probafcle reason was that the power of Phraortes was 
too great to admit of such an attempt. If we accept the 
chronology of Herodotus, the year of Phraortes' attack on 
Nineveh, 625 B. C, coincides with the time of the death of 
Asurbanipal and the defection of Babylon from the Assyrian 
rule. ,In spite of her difficult position, however, Assyria 
seemed still to have possessed sufficient power to cast off 
the Medes for a time. 


Phraortes was succeeded by his son Cyaxares, who com- 
pleted his father's work; and under this monarch the Median 
power reached the summit of its greatness. According to 
the account of Herodotus (i. 73, 74), Cyaxares carefully reor- 

21 Gesch. p. 408; for an historical examination of the foundation of 
Media, see Delattre, Medes, pp. 129 if. 



ganizing the Median army; dividing the spearmen, archers, 
and cavalry into separate troops, marched with his entire 
force against Nineveh, intending, in vengeance for the defeat 
and death of his father, completely to destroy the city. His 
first siege, owing to the Scythian irruption into his kingdom, 
he was forced to raise, but finally, shaking off the barbarians, 
he besieged Nineveh anew and at length made an end of the 
Assyrian power. 

The Fall of Nineveh. 

According to the account of Berossus, which may be trust- 
worthy, the Babylonian king, whose son Nebuchadnezzar was 
married to the daughter of the Median chief, helped the Medes 
in" this siege 22 . It should be noticed here that Berossus and 
the authors dependent on him did not know of Cyaxares, but 
believed that Nineveh was conquered by Astyages. Accord- 
ing to the account of Abydenus, however, the king of Baby- 
lon Busalossor (Nabopolassar), having married his son Nabu- 
kodrossoros to the daughter of the Median chief Asdahak, 
proceeded alone against Nineveh 23 . 

About the details of the fall of Nineveh there is no record 
either hi Herodotus or in the cuneiform inscriptions, the last 
Assyrian kings of whom we have any document being Asur- 
etil-iUmi-ukinwl and Sin-sar-iskun 24 . Herodotus, i. 107, mere- 
ly mentioned the capture of Nineveh by the Medes, giving 
no detailed account, while hi the Assyrian inscriptions there 
is absolutely no reference to the event. Equally silent are 
the documents of Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar 
and first independent king of Babylon, hi which, in view of 
the statement of Berossus, just mentioned, we might expect 
to find some allusion to the overthrow of Assyria. 

22 Tiele, Gesch., p. 410. 23 Asdahak is the Armenian form of 
Astyages. For this and fuller ancient opinions regarding the part of 
the Babylonians in the fall of Nineveh, we may compare Delattre, 
Les Chaldeens jusqu'a la formation de l'Empire de Nabochodonossor 
and Tiele Gesch., pp. 414; 421. 24 See Bezold, Lit. p. 122. 


Winckler's opinion, based on the silence of Herodotus, re- 
garding the participation of the Babylonians in the siege of 
Nineveh, was that the Medes captured the Assyrian capital 
alone. This view has been rightly objected to by Lehmann 25 . 
An argumentum ex silentio is at best poor reasoning. More- 
over, Tiele has pointed out that the continuation of the Baby- 
lonian power would have been impossible had Nabopolassar 
remained neutral in the war between Media and Assyria 26 . 

The statement of Berossus then, regarding the Babylonian 
and Median alliance against Assyria seems to commend itself 
to good judgment. 

The Chief Facts. 

At any rate the chief facts are certainly clear: Nineveh 
was destroyed, — so thoroughly that Xenophon, when crossing 
Asia in 401 B. C with the ten thousand, mistook the ruins 
of the great city for those of Median towns laid waste by 
the Persians 27 . It seems generally recognized, and the opi- 
nion of almost all antiquity (the untrustworthy records of 
Abydenus excepted), that the Medes played the chief part in 
the ruin of Assyria, and it is likely that in this historical 
fact lies the key to the solution of the problem of Darius 
the Median. 

Confusion of History. 

The interpolation by the author of Daniel of a Median 
rule in Babylon directly after the fall of the Babylonian 
house may possibly depend on a confusion between the story 
of the fall of Nineveh and the account of the overthrow of 
Babylon. Nineveh fell at the hands of the Medes. Some 
authors might differ as to the name of the Median prince 
•who destroyed it, but it seems to have been generally recog- 
nized by the ancients that the Medes captured and overthrew 
the city. Babylon on the other hand was conquered by Cyrus 

25 Samahmmukin, ii. pp. 185. 2 * ZA. vii. p. 19. 27 See Anabasis, 
iii. 4; iv. 12; also Zeph. ii. 13—15. 


the Persian, who had but a few years previously subdued 
these same Medes to his standard. 

It should be noted, moreover, that even in exilic times, 
when the Persians must have been well known, the terms 
Mede and Persian were used almost synonymously. Thus, 
in Is. xiii. 17; Jer. li. 11; 28. the conquest of Babylon by 
the Medes is prophesied. It is not surprising, therefore, 
that an author writing at a much later period and having; 
no historical, but rather a moral object in view should 
confuse, on the one hand, the accounts of the fall of the 
two great cities of the ancient world and be uncertain, 
on the other hand, regarding the name of the conquering 
people. The author of Daniel, probably influenced both 
by the story of the fall of Nineveh and by this con- 
fusion of the names Mede and Persian, makes a Median 
ruler receive Babylon after the overthrow of the native dy- 
nasty, and then mentions later the historical Cyrus. We may 
suppose that the Biblical writer believed that Cyrus suc- 
ceeded to the empire of Babylon on the death of L the 
Median Darius. 

2. The second question, however, still remains unanswered. 
Why did the author of the Book of Daniel give to his ficti- 
tious Median king the familiar name of Darius? 

As early as the eleventh century of our era the view was 
advanced by the Benedictine monk, Marianus Scotus 28 , that 
Darius the Mede was Darius Hystaspis, and, on examining 
certain points in the account of Daniel, it mil appear that 
this idea will lead us to the correct solution of the difficulty. 
In chapter ix. 1, Darius the Mede is said to be the son of 
Xerxes (Ahasuerus), and it is stated that he established one 
hundred and twenty satrapies; Darius Hystaspis was the 
father of Xerxes and according to Herodotus, hi. 89, estab- 
lished twenty satrapies. Darius the Mede entered into pos- 

28 Bertholdt, Dan. p. 844. 


session of Babylon after the death of Belshazzar; Darius 
Hystaspis conquered Babylon from the hands of the rebels 29 . 
It seems clear from this comparison, and in view of the im- 
possibility of reconciling with history the existence of a Median 
ruler of Babylon, that the name Darius in Daniel is due to 
a confusion with that of the son of Hystaspis 30 . 

Just as Xenophon made Cyaxares the son of Astyages, so 
the writer of Daniel must have made his Darius the son of 
Xerxes, the Hebrew form of whose name he probably bor- 
rowed from Esther or Ezra, and, in addition to this, trans- 
ferred in a distorted form certain facts of the reign of Darius 
Hystaspis to the reign of Darius the Mede. The idea as 
stated by Friedrich Delitzsch 31 , that the original of Darius 
the Median may have been Cyrus' general Gubaru (Gobryas), 
who captured Babylon, seems very unsatisfactory. 

The origin of Darius the Mede. 
Darius the Mede appears therefore to have been the product 
of a mixture of traditions ; on the one hand, the story of the 
capture and destruction of Nineveh by the Medes, sixty-eight 
years before the fall of Babylon, may have contributed to the 
historical confusion of the author's mind and influenced him 
to insert a Median rule in Babylon before the Persians; 
while, on the other hand, the fame of the great Darius Hyst- 
aspis and of his capture of Babylon from the rebels may 
have led to the choice of the name "Darius" for the Median 
interloper, and induced the Biblical writer to ascribe in a 
vague way certain events of the life of the former to the 
reign of the latter 32 . 

29 So Herodotus, iii. 153-160. 30 Compare Beers, Richtige Ver- 
einigung der Regierungsjahre, p. 22; Bertholdt, Dan. p. iv; v. Lengerke, 
Dan. p. 230; and lately, Kamphausen op. cit. p. 29. 31 Calwer Bibel- 
lexicon, pp. 137; 138. 32 A similar confusion of persons is seen in the 
wellknown Greek legend concerning the fiery death of Sardanapalus 
(Asurbanipal). Haupt, in his corrections and additions to the ASKT. 
in the ZK. ii. p. 282, rem. 4, advanced the theory that this account 


It seems apparent that the interpolation of Darius the Mede 
must be regarded as the most glaring inaccuracy of the 
Book of Daniel. In fact, this error of the author alone is 
proof positive that he must have lived at a very late period, 
when the record of most of the earlier historical events 
had become hopelessly confused and perverted. 

arose from a confusion in later tradition between Sardanapalus and 
his half-brother Samassumukin , who, having rebelled in Babylon 
against his brother, perished in the flames when the city was captured 
by the victorious Assyrian king. This explanation, however, is not 
adopted by Lehmann, op. cit. p. 2, who is inclined to believe that the 
legend may have had an historical basis in the fact that Nineveh was 
destroyed by fire at the time of its capture by the Medes. 




This se'ction which is the introduction to the Book serves 
both to explain the presence of Daniel and his friends at the 
court of Nebuchadnezzar and also to show how a strict ad- 
herence to the Jewish religion must always be rewarded by 

The chapter falls naturally into four paragraphs; viz., The 
taking of Jerusalem, 1—2; the royal command concerning the 
children, 3-7; Daniel's resolution not to defile himself with 
the king's food, 8-16; the skill of the four Hebrew youths in 
astrology and divination, 17—21. 

1. a) The erroneous statement made here that Nebuchad- 
nezzar took Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim has been 
discussed above p. 18; see p. 64. 

1. b) Jehoiakim (Jhvh raises) reigned 607-597 B. C. His 
former name was Eliakim which had been changed to Jehoiakim 
by Pharaoh Necho the successor of Anion in Egypt (2 Chron. 
xxxvi. 4, and see p. 61.). 

2. a) And he carried them. The suffix "them" seems to 
include both Jehoiakim and the vessels, in spite of the fact 
that the ancient translators (LXX., and V.) made it refer to the 
vessels only. The author wishes to state as concisely as 
possible that Nebuchadnezzar brought Jehoiakim and, as wo 


see from the following verse, a number of other captives, 
together with the sacred vessels, to Babylonia "into the house 
of his god". The writer probably supposed that all the spoils 
of victory, treasures and captives alike, were presented in tri- 
umph at the heathen altar. He then states more explicitly 
that the vessels were put into the treasury, no doubt intend- 
ing by this assertion to bring momentarily into prominence a 
special theme of the Book which is not developed until C. v., e. g. 
the profanation of the holy utensils of Jhvh's Temple. Hav- 
ing thus somewhat awkwardly cleared the way for the narra- 
tive having a direct bearing upon the captives, he proceeds 
to tell his story of Daniel and his friends. 

It does not seem necessary with Kautzsch-Marti and Behr- 
mann 1 to consider that the text of this verse contains glosses, 
nor with Ewald, to suppose that some words have been 
omitted by a careless copyist. Still less does the theory of 
Hitzig commend itself, that the word "house" in the expression 
"house of his gods" means "land", but in "treasure house" re- 
turns to the proper signification "house"- 

2. b) Shinar is the Hebrew equivalent of the Bab. mat 
Sumeri, VR. 29, 46 e, which is the gentilic name for the non- 
Semitic provinces of southern Babylonia 2 . The Sangara of 
the Pharaoh Thotmes in. is very likely the Egyptian form of 
the same name 3 . It is now generally supposed that Baby- 
lonian-Assyrian m had a nasal sound, especially between vow- 
els and at the end of a syllable *, so that the word Sunier 
was probably pronounced Sunger (fig as in "singing") which 
the Hebrews endeavoured to reproduce by the combination 
5J3 and the Egyptians by ng. The word Shinar, which occurs 
only seven times in the O. T., must be regarded in this passage 
of Daniel as an attempt of the author to give an archaic 
colour to his narrative. 

1 See Kamphausen, p. 14. 2 Lehmann, SamassumuMn , p. 89. 
3 Tiele, Gesch. pp. 139; 145. 4 BA. i. p. 202; Del. Assyr. Gr. § 49 a , 


The common expression for Babylonia in exilic Hebrew is 
"land of Babylon" or "land of the Chaldseans"; Jer. li. 29; 
Ez. xii. 13. 

3. a) Chief of his Eunuchs; undoubtedly the same person 
as the "Prince of the Eunuchs" of vv. 7; 11. 

There were and still are in the East two varieties of castrati, 
the one with all the sexual organs removed, and the other from 
whom merely the testes have been amputated (cf. Dt. xxiii. 2). 

3. b) Of the children of Israel. As has already been in- 
dicated above p. 25, three distinct classes of youths are men- 
tioned here: 1. Those of the Jewish Captivity; 2. Those who 
were of royal Babylonian origin; and 3. Those who were child- 
ren of Babylonian nobles. The old idea that the writer meant 
to indicate that all of the youths chosen were of Israelitish 
origin is probably not correct, as it is expressly stated in v . C 
that Daniel and his friends were Judceans. 

4. The learning and tongue of the Chaldees. The writer 
evidently meant by this expression the language in which the 
celebrated works on astrology and divination were composed. 
It is now known that the idiom of the Babylonian wise men 
was the non-Semitic Sumerian, but it is impossible to decide 
whether the author of Daniel was aware of this fact. 

The word "Chaldseans" is used in Daniel in two senses. 
It is applied sometimes, as iu Jer. xxiv. 5; Ez. xxiii. 15, as a 
race name to the Babylonians themselves, for ex. iii. 8; v. 30; 
ix. 1, but the expression is much oftener used to denote either 
a special class of magicians, or, as in this passage (i. 4), as a 
general term for all magicians. 

It is a common error to consider the name "Chaldsean" 
as synonymous with "Babylonian" or even "Old Babylonian". 
The Chaldaeans were clearly in ancient times a people quite 
distinct from the inhabitants of Babylonia. Their exact origin 
is extremely uncertain. It may be conjectured with Winckler 5 , 

5 UAG. p. 48. 


that, judging from the Semetic character of their proper 
names, they were a Semitic people; or with Jensen 6 , that 
they were "Semitised Sumerians", i. e. a non-Semitic race which 
by contact with Semitic influences had lost its original character. 
It seems probable that they came first from the South at a 
very early date along the coast of the Persian Gulf 7 . Hav- 
ing settled in the region about Ur (Ur of the Chaldees), they 
began a series of encroachments on the Babylonians proper, 
which after many centuries ended in the Chaldsean supremacy 
under Nabopolassar and his successors. 

The peculiar use of the name "Chaldsean" in Daniel, as a 
synonym for magicians, is not only entirely foreign to the 
usage of the Old Testament, but is peculiar to the Greek and 
Roman writers. The term XaXdaloi, is used, for example, by 
Herodotus to denote the priestly class of Babylonia, from 
whom it is supposed that he got his historical information. 
This transfer of the name of the people to a special class is 
probably to be explained in the following manner. 

The sudden rise of the Babylonian Empire under the Chal- 
dsean rule of Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar, tended to 
produce so thorough an amalgamation of the Chaldseans and 
Babylonians who had hitherto been racially distinct, that, in the 
course of time, no perceptible differences existed between the 
two peoples. The name "Chaldaean", however, lived on in the 
restricted sense already mentioned and for the following rea- 
sons. The Kaldi had seized and held from most ancient 
times the region of old Sumer, the centre of the non-Semitic 
culture 6 . It seems extremely probable that they were so 
strongly influenced by this superior civilization as to even- 
tually adopt it as their own, and, as they were the dominant 
race, the priestly caste of that region became a Chaldaean in- 

fi Lehmann, op. cit. p. 173. 7 For the old opinion of Gesenius, 

Heeren, Niebuhr, etc. that the Kaldi came from Armenia and Kurdistan 
and conquered Babylon shortly before the time of Nebuchadnezzar, cf. 
Tiele, Gesch. p. 65. 


Stitution. It is reasonable to conjecture that Southern Baby- 
lonia, the home of the old culture, supplied Babylon and other 
important cities with priests, who from their descent were 
correctly called Chaldseans; a name which in later times, 
owing to the amalgamation of the Chaldseans and Babylonians 
when the term had lost its national force, became a distinc- 
tive appellation of the priestly caste. 

6. Daniel. This name appears in the O. T. of four dif- 
ferent persons: 1. Of the Patriarch of Ezekiel (see above, 
p. 26 ff.); 2. Of one of the sons of David, 1 Chron. iii. 1; 
3. Of a certain Levite who was a contemporary of Ezra (see 
p. 28 n. 17); 4. Of the Daniel of our Book. 

7. Unto whom the prince of the Eunuchs gave names. 
It does not seem to have been uncommon for kings to change 
the names of their vassals. Compare 2 Kings, xxiv. 17, where 
the name of Mattaniah, the uncle of Jeconiah, is changed by 
Nebuchadnezzar to Zedekiah, and 2 Kings xxiii. 34, where 
Necho, king of Egypt, changed the name of Eliakim, brother 
of Jehoahaz, to Jehoiakim. Jehoiakin, son of Jehoiakim. 
was also called Jeconiah (1 Chron. iii. 16) and Coniah (Jesr. 
xxii. 24). 

In Assyrian we may compare the case of Tiglath-pileser 
III. (745-727 B. C), who reigned in Nineveh as Tiglath- 
pileser (Tukultipalesarra), and in Babylon under the name 
Pulu; i. e. the biblical Pul. Shalmaneser the fourth (727- 
722 B. C.) was called in Babylon Ulula'a (Ilulaios), but in 
Assyrian Shalmaneser (Sulmdnu-asarid). 

8. Daniel's refusal to eat the king's food is a distinctly 
Maccabiean touch. We have only to refer to 1 Mace. i. 
62-3 to see how such a defilement was regarded by the 
pious Jews of that period. The persecuting Syrian king was 
particularly importunate against the ritualistic requirements 
of the Jewish Law and especially against the regulation for- 
bidding the Jews to touch strange food (see I. c. i. 60). The 
author of Daniel, therefore, in emphasizing this act of piety 


on the part of his hero, is plainly touching on a point of 
vital importance to his readers. 

The Prophet's refusal to eat the heathen dainties was not 
only a pious deed in itself, but as an act of voluntary fasting 
was also a recognized means of preparation for the divine 
revelation, as in Ex. xxxiv. 28; Dt. ix. 9; 18. 

9. Now God had brought Daniel into favour etc. This 
verse is necessary to explain why the Chief Eunuch was not 
enraged at Daniel's objection, and also to bring out more 
forcibly the gentle traits of the hero's character. 

17. a) In all learning and wisdom. That is; in all the 
magical and astrological literature. The word "book" trans- 
lated in the A. V. by "learning" simply means "that which 
is written down" and could therefore be appropriately used 
of the cylinders and tablets of the Babylonians. It is not 
likely, however, that the author of Daniel knew the exact 
character of the cuneiform docmnents. 

17. b) In all sorts of visions and dreams. This phrase 
was undoubtedly introduced purposely as a connecting link 
with C ii. 

20. a) Magicians. This word appears to mean "penmen" 
or "scribes". The correct translation is probably "hierogram- 
matists", e. g. "those who write sacred things". It is used 
only in the plural in the O. T. In Gn. xli. 8; 24, etc., it is 
the term applied to the Egyptian priestly scribes. 

In Assyria and Babylonia, the scribes (tupsarre) were a 
special class of the priesthood, from whom all the literature 
of the times proceeded. 

20. b) Astrologers. This is a Babylonian loanword found 
only in Daniel. The exact meaning of the stem from which it 
is derived is not clear, but it may have originally conveyed 
the idea of whispering or muttering, in allusion to the pe- 
culiar tonic in which the incantations were uttered. The 
correct translation is probably "conjurers" and not "astro- 
logers" as in the A. V. 


It is probable that the author of Daniel had do very 
clear idea regarding the exact meaning of the terms which 
he uses to denote the various kinds of magicians at Baby- 
lon. He very likely knew through the vague traditions which 
were current in his tune that there had been in Baby- 
lon different branches of the magical arts, each of which was 
represented by a special body of men, but it is difficult to 
say with certainty that the writer actually meant to apply 
each term to a distinct class. 

The Chaldseau priestly caste was in all probability an here- 
ditary order, as Diodorus Siculus stated (ii. 29). According 
to the same authority, the priests were divided into three 
classes; first, those who celebrated sacrifices and performed 
purification; secondly, those who recited incantations to keep 
off evil spirits, and finally; those who explained portents and 
dreams. This division is not contradicted by the inscriptions, 
although it cannot be known just what Assyrian names corre- 
spond to each of these classes 8 . 

21. Unto the first year of Cyrus. There seems to be a 
contradiction here with x. 1, where it is stated that Daniel 
saw a vision in the third year of Cyrus. The explanation 
that the author merely meant to imply that Daniel lived to 
see the return of the exiles in the first year of Cyrus is 
unsatisfactory, because, as Bevan very properly points out 
(Dan. p. 63), the Return is only alluded to very indirectly in 
the Book in ix. 25. On the other hand it is certainly strange 
that the writer should have permitted such an apparent 
contradiction to stand. On this account, it seems quite 
possible that this verse is a later gloss 9 , inserted by some 
one who, without a careful examination of the Book, wished 
to call the reader's attention to the fact that Daniel actually 
lived through the time of the persecuting Nebuchadnezzar 
until the advent of the redeeming Cyrus. 

8 For this whole subject, cf. Lenormant, La Divination entre les 
Chaldeens. 9 So Behrmann. 



Having explained the presence of Daniel and his friends 
at the Babylonian court, the author proceeds at once in 
C. ii to narrate a special episode in the life of his hero, 
illustrative of the mysterious powers of interpretation with 
which the Seer was gifted and which had been alluded to in 
a preliminary way in C. i. 17 l . 

Mention has already been made of the striking similarity 
between this narrative and the story of Joseph in Gn. xl.-xli., 
it resemblance which has led many critics to believe that the 
writer of Daniel simply imitated the Pentateuchal account, 
adapting it to his own special purpose 2 . The theme of 
Dan. ii is practically identical with that of 0. vii which is 
really an amplification of the vision regarding the four em- 
pires, only couched in someAvhat more apocalyptic language 
than C. ii 3 . 

There are seven paragraphs in C. ii which should be ob- 
served; viz., The king's dream, 1-4; the king's threat to the 
Chaldteans, 5-13; the summons to Daniel, 14-18; the rev- 
elation of the vision to Daniel, 19-23; the exposition of the 
dream, 24-35; the interpretation of the dream, 36-45; and 
finally, as a climax, Nebuchadnezzar's acknowledgment of the 
power of Daniel's God, 46-49. 

1. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchad- 
nezzar, etc. This statement regarding the date of Daniel's 
interpretation which is in direct contradiction with i. 5; 18 
lias excited much controversy among expositors 4 . All at- 
tempts ou the part of the defenders of the authenticity of 
the Book to reconcile this assertion with C. i are highly 
unsatisfactory. Thus, the second year cannot possibly mean 
the second year after -the destruction of the Temple at Jeru- 

1 See p. 02. 2 See p. 29 3 See p. 9. * See p. 18. 


salem 5 , because the reign-years of a Babylonian king could 
never have boon dated from such an event, even by an in- 
accurate foreign tradition. It is equally unsafe to assume 
that Nebuchadnezzar began his reign as a co-regent with his 
lather Nabopolassar 6 and that this is the second year after 
Nabopolassar's death, because it is nowhere stated in the 
extant inscriptions of Nabopolassar that Nebuchadnezzar was 
co-regent. The only allusion to the great king in these docu- 
ments is the statement that the king Nabopolassar caused 
his sons Nebuchadnezzar the elder, and the younger brother 
Nabusulisvr to take part hi a religious ceremony at the 
founding of a temple 7 . 

This statement in Dan. ii. 1 is so evidently a contradiction 
to i. 5; 18 that we have no right to suppose in this case, 
any more than in i. 21 8 , that the writer of the Book could 
have allowed such an error to stand. We are thus practi- 
cally driven to accept the theory of Ewald who alters the 
text by the addition of a single word 9 so as to translate 
"in the twelfth year of Nebuchadnezzar". 

4. a) In Syriae. This should be translated "in Aramaic", 
which was the colloquial language of the Jews at the time 
of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is highly probable that this word 
is a later addition to the passage, introduced by some stud- 
ent of the text, in order to mark the beginning of the Aram- 
aic sections. Its ultimate incorporation as an integral part 
of the text has led some commentators to the erroneous con- 
clusion mentioned above vo , that the author of Daniel be- 
lieved Aramaic to have been the language of Babylonia. The 
verse probably read originally as follows: "Then spake the 
Chaldaeans to the king, and said:". This last expression "and 
said" was afterwards superseded by the gloss translated in 
the A. V. "in Syriae" 11 . 

6 So Kashi. B So Hengstenberg and Zockler. 7 Nabop. C. ii 
11.68 ft'. 8 See p. 63. B mm. 10 See p. 11. " Haupt in 
h.impbausen, p. 16. 

Prince, Daniel. 5 


4. b) O King Live For Ever, was a common form of 
address to royalty in the East; cf. iii. 9; v. 10; vi. 7; 22; 
Neh. ii. 3; 1 K. i. 31 12 . This greeting was common also in 
Babylonian times cf. BA. i. p. 239: — "May Nebo and Mero- 
dach give long days and everlasting years unto the king of 
the lands, my lord". 

8. a) That ye would gain the time, because ye see the 
thing has gone from me. It is probable that this whole 
passage should be translated as follows: — "And the king 
spake and said: I know of a certainty that ye would gain 
time, although ye see that the thing is fixed (determined) by 
me; for ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak 
before me until the time be changed" (v. 9). This last phrase 
has no logical connection in v. 9 and should therefore be 
transferred to v. 8, as just shown. 

8. b) "To gain time" means at the king's expense. We find a 
similar idea in the Latin idiom tempus emere 13 , but the ex- 
pression in the N. T. 14 "redeeming the time", cited in this 
connection by Havernick and Hitzig, conveys quite a differ- 
ent idea, e. g. that of using the time at its full value. 

8. c) The thing is gone from me. This translation is in- 
correct in view of the fact that the word regarded as mean- 
ing "gone (from me)" is probably a Persian loanword, signi- 
fying "certain". Translate as indicated above : "The thing is 
fixed (or, "determined") by me" 1 5 . 

9. There is but one decree for you, e. g. "one sentence 
which ye shall suffer". The word is the same as that used 
in v. 13; "and tlte decree (the sentence) went forth that the 
wise men should be slain". 

The whole verse should read: — "But if ye will not make 
known unto me the dream there is one sentence for yon" 
(e. g. the one already set forth in v. 5) ; "therefore, tell me 

12 BA. i. p. 242; Kaulen, Assyr. u. Bab. p. 262. 13 Cicero Verrus, i. 3. 
14 Kpli. v. 16; Col. iv. 5. ir ' See philological note. 


the dream and I shall know that ye can set forth its inter- 
pretation"; thus omitting the middle section which was trans- 
ferred to v. 8. 

10. King, Lord or Ruler. This should be translated 
"great and mighty king". It is undoubtedly a reminiscence 
of the old Assyro-Babylonian title so common in the in- 
scriptions "Great king, mighty king, king of Assyria", (or of 
Babylon) 16 . 

11. Except the gods whose dwelling is not with flesh. 
This simply means that the astrologers and magicians con- 
fessed the limitations of their art. There were some things 
which even they could not accomplish. 

12. Very furious. This is most probably an imitation of 
the story of Joseph, as it is the same stem used in Gn. 
xl. 2; xli. 10, to denote the wrath of Pharaoh. 

13. And the decree went forth that the wise men should 
be slain. Such a sentence, implying the destruction of all 
the wise men, indicates that the author regarded them as a 
special class or order, of which he goes on to state that 
Daniel and his friends were members. 

14. a) With counsel and wisdom; more correctly "with 
common sense and good judgment". It simply means that 
Daniel gave a judicious and diplomatic reply. 

14. b) Arioeh occurs Gn. xiv. 1 as the name of the king 
of Ellasar, the ancient Babylonian Larsa. It is highly likely 
that the author of Daniel appropriated the name from this 

15. Why is the decree so hasty from the king? This 
is an incorrect translation. The LXX. render rightly "why is 
the decree so cruel on the part of the king?" 17 This is the 
proper meaning of the Aramaic word of the original, which 
never expresses the idea of haste. 

16 Cf. 2 Kings xviii. 28. 17 So also V. & less correctly 'shameless, 



18. The God of Heaven. This expression, winch occurs 
in the later J document (J2 ca. 850-700 B. C), e. g. in Gn. 
xxiv. 7, is a favourite one with the Hebrew writers of the 
exilic period; cf. Dan. ii. 44; Ezra i. 2; Jou. i. 9; and Revel, 
xi. 13. It may be a reminiscence of the common Babylonian 
expression "the great gods of the heavens and the earth". 
In iv. 26, the word "heavens" alone is used as a synonym 
for Jhvh; see note on this passage. 

24. He went and said thus unto him. Neither the LXX. 
nor V. translate tins second "he went". As the word does 
not seem necessary to the context, it is probably to be can- 
celed as a gloss x 8 . 

27. Soothsayers, also iv. 7 (4). This word is a derivative 
from a stem meaning "to cut, to decide". The exact trans- 
lation seems to be "horoscopists", e. g. drawers of horo- 
scopes 19 or celestial charts, showing the position of the con- 
stellations at the hour of one's birth. 

28. The visions of thy head. "Of thy head", because 
the head is the seat of vision; cf. iv. 2; 7; 10; vii. 1 ; 15. 
Thoughts on the other hand are said to come from the heart; 
cf. ii. 30. 

29. As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy 
mind upon thy bed. Better, "thy thoughts came up to 
thee". The king is represented as lying awake, probably in 
meditation regarding the future. The explanatory vision was 
sent to him by God. The author evidently intends to mark 
the contrast between the waking thoughts and the subsequent 

30. a) But for their sakes that shall make known the 
interpretation, should be translated "but in order that the 
interpretation should be made known". 

30. b) The thoughts of thy heart, e. g. the speculations 
regarding the future alluded to in v. 29. 

18 Against the idea of Behrmann, p. 12. 19 AJP. xiii. p. 280. 


32. This image's head was of fine gold. It is interesting 
to observe that in this chapter and in v. 4 the author places 
gold before silver, as if it were more valuable, but in v. 23 
he mentions silver first. It is impossible to make any de- 
duction from this circumstance regarding the relative value 
of the metals in the time of the author. In Assyrian, gold 
is sometimes mentioned before silver and sometimes after it, 
to all appearances in a purely arbitrary manner. In v. 23 
V. mentions silver first, gold, and the LXX. avoid classi- 
fying the metals 20 . 

34-35. The stone cut out without hands, e. g. without 
any human intervention 21 , is undoubtedly the symbol of the 
coming Messianic rule which is to destroy all the preceding 
kingdoms of the wicked. It is made to fall first upon the 
feet of the visionary image, leaving the rest intact, in order 
to show that the might of the Messianic king is to develope 
by degrees, and that the destruction of the heathen is con- 
sequently to be a gradual one. The heathen empires typi- 
fied by the different parts of the image represent four suc- 
cessive phases in the progressive developement of the un- 
righteous which are to be checked and crushed into nothing- 
ness by the constantly increasing Messianic power. 

35. a) The iron, the clay. In more properly the clay 
comes first. In w. 33-34, the iron must, of course, precede 
the clay in the descending scale of valuation, but in vv. 35- 
36, where the reverse order is followed, and the least impor- 
tant material should be destroyed first, the clay should un- 
doubtedly precede all the others. It is difficult to decide 
whether is translating freely according to the sense, or 
really following a more accurate text. If the text as it now 
stands is correct, the error may simply have been one of 
carelessness on the part of the author of Daniel 22 . 

20 Kamphausen, p. 19. 21 Cf. Dan. viii. 25; Job xxxiv. 20; Lara, 
iv. 6. 22 See on this passage, Kamphausen, p. 19. 


35. b) And the stone that smote the image became a 
great mountain and filled the whole earth. This is the 
symbol of the Messianic kingdom which is to extend over 
the whole earth and of which Mount Zion is the physical 
prototype 23 . 

36. We will tell. It should be noticed that Daniel is made 
to include his friends here, in order that he may save them, 
as well as himself, from the king's wrath. They are necessary 
to the author of the Book for the narrative in C. iii. 

37-38. It is highly probable that the author borrowed the 
ideas herein expressed from Jer. xxvii. 5-6; xxviii. 14. A de- 
scription of the power of Nebuchadnezzar has been given 
above, p. 31. 

37. Thou, o king, (art a) king of kings. This is not the 
customary Babylonian form of address. Nebuchadnezzar is 
called, for example, in the great East India House Inscrip- 
tion 24 dating from his reign, simply "Nebuchadnezzar, king 
of Babylon, the exalted prince, the beloved of Marduk 25 ", etc. 
The usual Assyrian form was much more ornate: "The great 
king, the mighty king, the king of hosts, the king of Assyria". 
This collection of titles is assumed by Antiochus Soter (280-260 
B. C.) with the alteration and addition : "king of Babylon, 
king of the lands" 26 . The expression "king of kings", found 
in Daniel is a characteristic Persian title; cf. "I am Darius 
the great king, the king of kings", etc. 27 

38. The fowls of the heaven. LNX. and add here "and 
the fish of the sea", as if it were necessary to enumerate all 
kinds of life. It is probable that this was a purely arbitrary 
gloss based on a misunderstanding of the passage. 

39. a) And after thee shall arise another kingdom, in- 
ferior to thee. This is plainly the Median empire 28 which 

23 Cf. 4* xlviii. 1; '/'" lxxxvii; Mi. iv. 1; Ezok. xvii. 22-4. 2 * EIH. 
i. ltf. 2B The Biblical Merodach, the tutelary deity of Babylon. 
• 2 " KB. iii. pt. 2, p. 136. 27 Bezold, Acham. Inschr. pp. 32-3. 

28 See p. 50—1 and below on v. 28. 


is represented by the mythical Median Darius in whose reign 
the episode of the lions' den was supposed to have taken 
place (C. vi.). The author probably knew nothing of the Medes 
save their name and therefore passed this empire over, both 
here and hi C. vii., with a mere mention. 

39. b) And another third kingdom of brass which shall 
bear rule over all the earth. This is undoubtedly the 
Persian empire of Cyrus, of which the writer naturally knew 
more than he did of the Medes. His object in the present 
chapter is to lay stress on the first and fourth kingdoms; 
first, on the empire under which he supposed Daniel to have 
flourished and secondly, on the rule of the Greco -Syrian 
sovereigns under which he himself lived. 

40-44. And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as 
iron, forasmuchas iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth 
(lit. crusheth) all things. There is no reason for regarding 
the words "and as iron that breaketh"; viz. "all these" (40) as 
a gloss 29 . The expression "all these" is indefinite, but seems 
to refer to the three metals, gold, silver and brass just men- 
tioned as the component parts of the image. 

This fourth kingdom is the power founded by Alexander 
which is worse than any that preceded and is to be strong 
and hard to break; yet its strength is not irresistible, for it 
shall be divided against itself (41): "And it shall be partly 
strong and partly broken"; (42) strong as regards the iron, 
the Seleucides, and broken as regards the clay, the Ptolemies, 
whose power began to wane about 221-204 B. C. under Philo- 
pator. These monarchs, the Ptolemies and the Seleucides, 
"shall mingle themselves with the seeds of men" 30 , e. g. they 
shall make marriages among themselves (43), but they shall not 
prevail by these alliances. The temporal Messianic kingdom, 
for winch all the pious Jews of the Maccaba&an period so 
devoutly hoped, shall supersede this Gentile peiiod "in the 

29 See Kamphausen, p. 20. 30 Cf. Jer. xxxi. 27. 


days of those kings" (44), e. g. when the empire is divided, 
and shall last for ever, absorbing all other nations. 

45. For as much as thou sawest, etc. Daniel simply re- 
iterates here his statement of the dream, laying special stress 
on the fact that the stone was cut out of the mountain with- 
out human intervention, in order to impress more vividly upon 
the monarch that the whole course of future events is to be 
regulated by divine power. There is to be no human force 
in the overthrow of the heathen. This sentence goes with 
what precedes in v. 44. Verse 45 should consist solely of 
the concluding words: "The great God hath made known to 
the king what shall come to pass here-after; and the dream 
is certain and the interpretation thereof sure". 

46. Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face 
and worshipped Daniel. This act of the king's is explained 
in the next verse. The adoration was not ofi'ered to Daniel 
personally, but through him to the God Whom he represented 
and Whose power had just been manifested so marvellously. 
The author's object is clearly to depict the humiliation of the 
heathen before triumphant Israel. Several expositors have 
called attention to the resemblance between this account and 
the fable regarding Alexander narrated by Josephus 31 who 
states that when that monarch entered Jerusalem, he prostrated 
himself before the Jewish High-Priest, explaining to his com- 
panion Parmenion that this homage was intended for the 
divine power represented by the Priest. 

48-49. Then the king made Daniel a great man .... 
and made him ruler over the whole province of Baby- 
lonia and chief of the governours over all the wise men 
of Babylon. This verse, which serves as a connecting link 
with iv. and v., is plainly an imitation of Gn. xli. 40-43, the 
account of the promotion of Joseph in Egypt to be second 
to the King. Daniel does not refuse the honour offered liim, 

31 Ant. xi. 8; 5. 


but requests that his friends be made partakers of it. The 
prophet remains near the royal person "in the kino's gate" 32 , 
e. g. at the court. It is of course not historically probable 
that a Jewish prophet could have occupied such a position; 
first, because it is difficult to see how a strict Jew could 
conscientiously hold this post, and secondly, because the magi- 
cians, probably being- an hereditary order, would have resented 
an outsider being set over them. 

The allusion to Daniel's three companions undoubtedly 
points forward to the narrative of C. iii. 


This section of the Book is devoted exclusively to the 
narrative of the episode of the Fiery Furnace, in which Daniel's 
three companions are made to play the chief part. The au- 
thor s aim in this chapter was undoubtedly to demonstrate 
first, that death should be preferred by the pious Israelite 
to any form of idolatry, a distinctly Maceabsean touch, and 
secondly, that the mercies of Jlivh are not only shown in a 
marvellous way through the miraculous gifts of Daniel him- 
self, but also by means of his three friends who, like their 
leader and hero, remained faithful to the ordinances of the 
Jewish religion. The special aim of this chapter, therefore, 
which is quite in keeping with the general tone of the Book, 
is practically identical with that of C. vi., where Daniel him- 
self appears as the willing martyr who is rescued by the 
direct interposition of the Divine Power. 

It is highly striking, however, that the companions of Daniel 
are not mentioned again after C. iii. In fact, a careful ex- 
amination of the work seems to indicate that they were only 
mentioned in i. and ii., in order to prepare the reader for this 

32 Esther ii. 19; iii. 2. 


one great episode. Bevan remarks, in connection with the 

narrative of C. iii. :- " if Daniel had intervened to save 

his friends, there would have been no opportunity for the 
display of the divine power, preserving them unhurt amidst 
the flames of the furnace" l . This does not necessarily follow, 
for, if the author had seen fit to connect Daniel with this 
episode, neither the moral nor the general form of the account 
would have suffered in the least, as he could easily have 
made Jhvh perform a miracle through Daniel, in order to 
terrify the king and thus save his friends. In fact, the pro- 
minence of the prophet throughout the entire work — he is 
the central figure of every narrative save this — naturally leads 
the reader to expect some denouement of this character. That 
Daniel is quite ignored, however, would seem to indicate that 
C. iii. is a distinct interruption of the series of narratives about 
the prophet's influence on Nebuchadnezzar and that it is prob- 
ably to be regarded, therefore, as an intentional interpolation 
introduced by the author himself, in order to give a parallel 
account of the same king's experiences with three other pious 
Israelites who are represented as the companions of Daniel 
in his captivity. In other words, Daniel was not the only 
person through whom Jhvh could influence Nebuchadnezzar. 
There is probably no historical basis for the account as a 
whole, but it is quite possible that the narrative embodies 
some special traditional elements, distinct from those relating 
to Daniel, which the author may have incorporated into his 
work as a valuable addition to and variation of his more ex- 
tended account of the Babylonian Seer. 

It is, of course, extremely difficult to determine just how 
much of the subject matter of C. iii. depends on tradition and 
how much was invented by the author himself. It is possible, 
for example, that he got his idea of Nebuchadnezzar's haughty 
speech in v. 15 from the words attributed to the represent - 

1 Dan. p. 79. 


ative of Sennacherib in Is. xxxvii. 10 ff 2 , but on the other hand, 
the words of Nebuchadnezzar in iv. 30 relating to the glory 
of Babylon, already commented on above (p. 31), show without 
much doubt that there really was a trustworthy tradition, 
on which the writer of Daniel based his idea of the power 
of the greatest of Babylonian monarchs. It is permissible to 
suppose, therefore, that if the Biblical author knew something 
of Nebuchadnezzar's grandeur, he would naturally put some 
such words into the king's mouth as we find in v. 15 without 
any direct influence from the narrative of Sennacherib's attack 
on Jerusalem. Furthermore, it hardly seems necessary to as- 
sume that the author of Daniel borrowed his idea regarding 
the punishment of burning alive among the Babylonians ex- 
clusively from Jer. xxix. 22, nor that the purely metaphorical 
passage Is. xliii. 2 contributed towards the formation of this 
whole account. While each of these passages may have had, 
and probably did have, an influence on the production of 
Dan. iii., it is hardly safe to imply that they were the only 
elements at the author's disposal. It is more likely that he 
chose this method of punishment, because it was one of the 
worst forms of torture inflicted on the pious Israelites during 
the Greco-Syrian persecution, and the moral of the story was 
thereby greatly enhanced 3 . 

The third chapter should be divided into five paragraphs 
as follows: — The proclamation regarding the image, 1-7; 
the accusation of Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego by the 
jealous Babylonian wizards, 8-12; the refusal of the three 
Jews to worship te image, 13-18; the miracle, 19-25; the 
conversion of Nebuchadnezzar, 26-30. 

1. a) Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold. 
Both and LXX. give the date of the erection of the image; 
viz., "in the eighteenth year". This is lacking, however, in all 
the other versions. 

2 Behrniann, Dan. p. 21. 3 See below on v. 6. 


It was a common custom among the Assyrians and Baby- 
lonians to erect images both for religious and political pur- 
poses, in the construction of which gold was frequently used. 
Of this we find plenty of evidence in the inscriptions. Thus 
Asumaqvrpal (885-860 B.C.) 4 says: "I erected an image of 
Ninib which was not there before .... of choice mountain 
stone and of pure gold". Ahirbanipal (668-625 B. C.) states 
that he carried away thirty two images of Elamitic kings, 
some of which were of gold 5 . Shalmaneser (860-825, B. C.) 
also records that he caused his own statue to be erected as 
an emblem of his royal sway 6 . 

It is not necessary to regard this passage in Daniel as a 
direct allusion to the erection by Antiochus Epiphanes of a 
great image of Apollo at Antiochia 7 . The custom of con- 
structing immense idols was too common among heathen mon- 
archs to admit of the supposition that the author had any 
special case in mind. 

1. b) Whose height was three score cubits and the breadth 
thereof six cubits. The use here of the sexagesimal system of 
enumeration is very probably a sign of a tradition dating from 
the time of the Babylonian captivity 8 , as it cannot be shown 
that the Hebrews reckoned by sixties before this event in 
their history; cf. Gn. xxv. 26; P. Dt. iii. 4, D, etc. 

1. c) In the plain of Dura. The LXX. do not regard this as 
a proper name, but translate it ''circumference". It was prob- 
ably intended, however, for a place-name and may be genuine 
Babylonian. Fried. Delitzsch suggests that this plain of Dura 
in the province of Babylon may have been some well known 
locality close to the city . He points out that, according to 
TV. R. 39, 9-11 b, there were three places called Diiru in Baby- 
lonia 10 . 

2. a) The princes, the governours, etc. It is extremely dif- 
ficult to distinguish between the classes of officials mentioned 

4 Asurn. ii. 133. 8 Asurb. vi. 48 ff. • Ob. 31. 7 Nestle, Marg. p. 35. 
8 Also Behrmann, Dan. p. 18. 9 Paradies, p. 216. 10 Also III. R. 9, 43. 


here, and indeed it is hardly necessary to do so, as these ex- 
pressions seem to be grouped together more to give a local 
colouring to the account than for the sake of exactness. Behr- 
mann 1 1 cites very appropriately a similar grouping of Persian 
titles in JEschylus, Pers. v. 1 1 ff., some of which were actually- 
invented by the Greek author. A discussion of each name 
is given in the Philological Commentary. 

2. b) And all the rulers of the provinces. This is mere- 
ly a summing up and is not intended to imply that there 
were other classes of officials not mentioned in the list. 

4. Peoples, Nations and Languages. The LXX. have here 
a fourfold group: "Nations and countries, peoples and lang- 
uages". M. which is followed by and V. is probably correct. 
The same expression is also found iv. 1; vi. 25. 

5. a) That at what time ye hear the sound of the 
cornel, flute, harp, sackbut psaltery, dulcimer, etc. More 
correctly: "The horn, syrinx, lyre, triangular harp, upright 
harp, bag-pipe (?)". The precise meaning of the two last words 
is doubtful here. That they, together with the word for "harp", 
are Greek loanwords, however, is perfectly clear, but the exact 
character of the instruments which the terms denoted in Aram- 
aic is not certain. The Greek y.i&ccqcc was undoubtedly a 
lyre -like instrument and there is every reason to believe that 
the Aramaic author of Daniel had some such instrument in 
mind in this passage. Whether it was identical in form with 
the Greek lyre or approached more closely the old Hebrew 
kirindr cannot of course be known. The Greek "psaltery" 
was undoubtedly the parent of the later dulcimer, e. g. an in- 
strument on which the strings lay parallel to each other, strung 
horizontally over a flat dish-shaped sound-body. On the other 
hand, the Hebrew nebel which is commonly translated by 
"psaltery" was in all probability not a dulcimer, but a pure 
harp, strung obliquely from a slanting sound-frame: we are 

11 Dan. p. 19. 


led to believe this by the descriptions of the Church Fathers. 
Whether, therefore, the author of Daniel had in mind the real 
Greek psaltery or whether he was merely using the Greek 
word to denote the Hebrew nebel is an open question. As to 
the term "symphony" Behrmann (p. ix.) wrongly denies that 
the Greek word avf.i(piovia was ever used for a musical in- 
strument, and asserts that it always meant "concert, harmony". 
There can be no doubt that this was the usual meaning of 
the word 12 , but in later Greek, ovf.icpiov(a may have been 
used to denote a form of bag-pipe ! 3 which possibly resembled 
the modern Spanish zampona, the name of which is clearly a 
derivative from ov/.icpiovia (Ital. sampogna). It was probably 
a goat -skin bag with two reeds, the one used as a mouth- 
piece to fill the bag, and the other employed as a chanter- 
flute with finger-holes. It is not likely that the au/nqtuvia 
was a sistrnm 1 *. In Dan. iii. 5, & omits the symphony alto- 

It is highly significant in this connection that the psaltery 
was a favourite instrument of Autiochus Epiphanes 15 . Its 
mention in Daniel may indeed be due to this fact. 

It can hardly be supposed that these three essentially Greek 
names of musical instruments were current at the court of 
Nebuchadnezzar. While there was, in all likelihood, some inter- 
course, even at that time, between the Asiatics and the Ion- 
ians in Asia Minor, it does not seem probable that the in- 
fluence was then strong enough to cause the adoption by the 
Babylonians of Greek musical instruments and even of their 
Greek names. In Assyrian literature the first mention of the 
lonians occurs in the inscriptions of Sargon (722-705 B. C.) 

12 The only passage where it seems to be used for a musical 
instrument is Polyb. 26, 105; cf. also laid. Etym. 3, 22, Ducange. 
13 See philological note. 14 V. translates the doubtful d^Vr 

in 1 Sam. xviii. 6 by in sistris. As the word is used here in connection 
with D*'Bn "hand-drums", this is probably a correct rendering. lr " Cf. 
Athenseus, x. 52. 


who relates that he conquered the Yamnd who dwelt "in the 
midst of the sea". Abydenus in Eusebius 16 tells of Sargou's 
successor Sennacherib that he conquered the fleet of the Greeks 
on the Cilician coast: "on the sea coast of Cilicia he over- 
threw and conquered the fighting fleet of Greek vessels in a 
naval battle". Sennacherib himself relates that he manned his 
ships "with Tyrian, Sidonian and Ionian sailors". (Senn. Smith, 
1. 91.). Neither in the later Assyrian nor in the Babylonian 
inscriptions does any further allusion to the Greeks occur. In 
fact, not until the time of Darius Hystaspis, two hundred years 
later do we hear anything more of them. This king speaks 
frequently of a " m&t Ydmanu", evidently referring, not to 
Greece proper, but to the Greek territory in Asia Minor 17 . 
In view of the absolute silence of the Babylonian inscriptions, 
it may be inferred that the Greek influence, later so powerful, 
had not yet begun to make itself perceptible in the East. 

5. b) And all kinds of music is a general expression to denote 
the other kinds of music not included in the list of instru- 

6. a) In the same hour should be rendered "at once, forth- 

6. b) A burning fiery furnace. This is probably a pit in the 
ground, lined with stones or bricks, covered by a low mound 
with a vent on top, into which the men were thrown, with a 
grated gate on one side, through which the king could see 
the interior of the furnace. Burning alive, which has been in 
use as a punishment until quite a recent date in Persia, was 
one of the favourite methods of torture practised on the Jews 
during the Seleucidan period 18 . That this punishment was in 
use among the Babylonians also is seen, for example, from 
the allusion in Jer. xxix. 22 to the roasting of Zedekiah and 
Ahab by the king of Babylon. 

18 Chron. ed. Schoene, i. 1, 35. 17 Cf. Delitzsch, Paradies, 

pp. 248 ff.; Schrader KAT. 2 pp. 81-2. 18 See above, p. 75 and cf. 

2 Mace. vii. 5. 


15. Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear ye 

fall down and worship the image which I have made, (well). 
An elliptical construction like those in Ex. xxxii. 32; Luke 
xiii. 9. This haughty utterance of Nebuchadnezzar's is quite 
in keeping with the author's idea of that monarch's power. 

16. S. M. and A. answered and said to the king: O Ne- 
buchadnezzar. Better: "to the king Nebuchadnezzar, O king"; 
altering the punctuation and inserting the word "king" a second 
time, as is done by the LXX 19 . 

17. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to 
deliver us from the burning fiery furnace and he will 
deliver us from thy hand, O king. This translation, which 
is highly unsatisfactory and obscure, is not in accordance with 
the Masoretic punctuation which makes the verse mean: "If 
our God ... be able to deliver us, He will deliver us from 
thy hand, O king", which is decidedly an improvement. It is 
still better, however, to translate: "If our God whom we serve 
exists, he is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, 
and from thy hand, O king, He will deliver us" 20 . This is 
a defiant expression of the Hebrews' perfect faith in the power 
of their God winch they make dependent on what is to them 
a certainty, e. g. His very existence. . 

18. If not of course implies no doubt in their minds, 
but simply means "in any case", e. g. even if He does not 
deliver us, but sees fit to allow us to perish. So V. quodsi 
noluerit "even if He should be unwilling". The similarity of 
the position of the three Jews to the situation of the pious 
Israelites under Antiochus Epiphanes is perfectly apparent. 

19. One seven times more than it was wont to be heated. 
More accurately "than it was needful to heat it". The ob- 
ject of this touch was of course to make the impending death 
of the martyrs seem even more terrible to the reader. 

19 Sec Kamphausen , p. 22. 20 Translation suggested by Mr. 

George Osborn in his lectures on the narrative sections of Daniel. 


21. In their coats, their hosen and their hats. This 
whole passage is very obscure and the A. V. is clearly in- 
correct. The following rendering, while making no pretence 
at absolute accuracy, is certainly better: "their trousers, their 
tunics and their cloaks". It is quite impossible to arrive at 
any satisfactory conclusion concerning the meaning of these 
words. Bevan notes the interesting circumstance that George 
Fox, the Quaker, deduced from this verse his idea that men 
should remain covered in the presence of royalty 21 . 

22. Took up; e. g. to the opening on top of the mound; 
see above on v. 6. 

23. After v. 23, sixty seven verses are inserted in the LXX. 
embodying a prayer of the three Jews, 1-21 ; a narrative para- 
graph, 22-26; and the song of praise of Daniel's companions 
after their miraculous rescue, 27-67. & and P. have adopted 
these additions outright, while Jerome incorporated them, but 
recognized them as interpolations 22 . 

25. Like the Son of God. Literally "like a son of 
the gods". The plural is never used in Aramaic for Jhvh, 
as it is in Hebrew. This is a highly characteristic touch on 
the part of the author. As in iv. 5, he makes the heathen 
king use an appropriate heathen expression. There is certainly 
no allusion here to any special Person. "Son of the gods" 
simply means "an angel" or "divine being' ; . 

26. The most high God; cf. Gn. xiv. 18; Mi. vi. 6. This 
expression is frequently put into the mouths of heathens who 
are referring to Jhvh; cf. 2 Mace. iii. 3; Mark v. 7 ; Luke vii. 28. 

27. a) Neither were their coats changed. Probably "their 
trousers" (see above on v. 21). Especial stress is laid on the 
condition of this garment, because it was in all probability 
full and baggy like the modern Turkish and Persian trousers 
and therefore more liable to be damaged by fire than any 
other article of their apparel. 

21 Dan. p. 84. " See above p. 2. 

Prince, Daniel. tJ 


27. b) "Changed" means simply "damaged" 23 . 

28-30. Then Nebuchadnezzar spake and said. This 
utterance of the king's recognition of Jhvh's power and the 
account of the honours heaped upon the three Jews contain the 
moral of the chapter. Verse 29 is parallel whith vi. 25—8. 


In the A. V. and in all modern versions the division be- 
tween iii. and iv. is made correctly, but in M. the first three 
verses of iv. are incorporated as vv. 31—33 of iii. 

This chapter, like the preceding ones, is an independent 
section, but was undoubtedly written in direct harmony with 
the ideas of all the narratives. Here, however, the moral is 
presented in a slightly different form. The author evidently 
intended to show his readers that Israel's God had the power 
to humiliate even the mightiest heathen monarch who was 
engaged in persecuting the worshippers of Jhvh. In this way, 
the writer probably hoped to console his co-religionists who 
were groaning under the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes, 
under which they must have felt themselves to be perfectly 
helpless and forsaken by their God. The external form of 
the chapter, that of an epistle by Nebuchadnezzar himself, 
was evidently adopted in order to give more vividness and 
force to the moral. In internal form, the section strongly 
resembles C. ii., as the subject is the declaration by the king 
of a disquieting and mysterious dream and its interpretation 
by Daniel after the Chaldeans had failed. In this chapter, 
however, the author goes a step further, as he makes the 
great king himself narrate the fulfillment and result of the 

The chapter should be divided into six paragraphs, as fol- 
lows: — The prologue, 1-3 (iii. 31-33); the king's unintelli- 

23 Not necessarily "rliii-n^eil Mich- colour" (Bevan, Dan. p. 80). 


gible dream, 4-9 (1-6); the statement of the dream, 10-18 
(7-15); Daniel's interpretation, 19-27 (16-24); fulfillment of 
the prophecy, 28-33 (25-30); Nebuchadnezzar's recovery and 
his recognition of the true God, 34-37 (31-34). 

1 (iii. 31). Peace be multiplied unto you; cf. vi. 25, but in 
Ezra v. 7 "unto the king, all peace". In Assyr., the expres- 
sion "to ask for peace" is commonly used of greeting a king, 
thus: "he did not ask for the peace of my majesty", e. g. he 
did not greet me becomingly l . The phrase "peace be with 
you" used as a greeting, as in this passage and in Arabic 

.salam 'aleikiim, does not occur in Assyrian 2 . 

2 (iii. 32). Signs and wonders; also vi. 28; cf. Dt. iv. 34. 
This is a common expression in the N. T. 

3 (iii. 33). As in iii. 1 the LXX. add the date here: "in 
the eighteenth year", which, however, is not followed in this 
instance by Q 3 . 

5-8 (2-5). The similarity between these verses and ii. 3 ff. 
is very striking. 

8 (5). a) According to the name of my god, e. g. Bel. 
This statement is correct, if, as conjectured below, the original 
form of the name was "Bel protect his life" 4 . 

8 (5). b) In whom is the spirit of the Holy Gods. "Holy 
gods" is a heathen expression appropriately put into the mouth 
of a heathen king 5 . P. and V. translate this correctly, but © 
renders it "God". It is probable, as a number of expositors 
have suggested, that this expression is borrowed from the 
passage in the story of Joseph, Gn. xli. 38 6 which should be 
translated "a man in whom is the spirit of the gods" (not 
"God", as in the A. V.). 

1 La i&diim mh/m sarrutia, V. R. 4, 134; also V. K. 8, 62—4, etc. 

2 Schrader, KAT. 2 , p. 152, entirely misunderstood the force of stiliuit 
dsi libbakunu tablta which does not mean "may my peace gladden 
thy heart", but "I am well; may it be well with thee"; cf. AW. p. 665. 

3 See above on iii. 1, p. 75. * See below philological note on i. 7. 
■'■ See above on iii. 2(>, p. 81 6 Cf. Bevan, p. 90, el ah 



9 (6). a) Master of the Magicians; better, "chief of the 
magicians"; cf. ii. 48, where his appointment is referred to in 
a preliminary way. It is highly characteristic that the king 
does not call on Daniel until after he has tested the heathen 
magicians, although, according to C. ii., he must have known 
of the Hebrew's superior skill. This is, of course, a device 
of the author whose object was to show the futility of all 
heathen wisdom. To bring this about, therefore, he sacrifices 
to a certain extent the consistency of his narrative, as one 
would naturally expect that if Daniel were the chief magician 
he would have been summoned first. 

9 (6). b) Tell me the visions of my dream that I have 
seen and the interpretation thereof. Lit. "the visions of 
my dream that I have seen and the interpretation thereof, tell 
me". Q renders "hear" before "the visions", evidently feeling 
the incongruity of the sentence with what follows. The king 
tells Daniel here the form of his dream and does not require 
him, as in C. ii., both to tell the dream and explain its mean- 
ing. The passage, therefore, should read: "hear the visions 
of my dream which I have seen and its interpretation do thou 
tell" 7 . 

10 (7). I saw and behold, a tree in the midst of the 
earth, etc. The striking similarity between the symbolism 
used in this dream and that in Ezek. xxxi. 3-14 has been 
noticed even by the early expositors and concordance writers. 
It is quite possible, that the author of Daniel borrowed his 
idea from this passage of Ezek., as has been suggested by 
several commentators 8 . Besides this, the king of Babylon is 
symbolized by a tree in Is. xiv. 12, a passage with which the 
Maccabsean writer was very probably familiar. 

11 (8). The tree grew and was strong. This gradual 
growth, which the king, however, could witness, is typical of 

7 See, however. Kaidphausen , ]>. 24. * •'('. for ex., Hitzig, Dan. 
p. 61, etc. 


the developement of Nebuchadnezzar's power (of. V. 22) which 
was to be interrupted at its very climax by his attack of 

12 (9). And in it was meat for all, etc., e. g. for man and 
beast. Everything within Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom was de- 
pendent on him as supreme ruler. He was the central source 
of all authority and all property. This is very like the medi- 
aeval feudal idea that all holders of property were tenants of 
the crown. 

13 (10). A watcher and an holy one. This means simply 
"an angel" and does not necessarily designate a special class 
of attendant spirits 9 . The expression "holy one" is necessary, 
in order to show that the watcher was super-human; cf. *F 
lxxxix. 6; 8; Zech. xiv. 5, where "the holy ones" means "angels". 

14 (11). He cried aloud and said thus. The author does 
not state to whom the speech of the angel is addressed. He 
probably leaves the reader to imagine that the divine emissary 
is issuing his commands to various subordinate spirits who 
are to carry out the decree on Nebuchadnezzar. 

15 (12). a) Nevertheless leave the stump of his roots 
in the earth, e. g. the king is not to be entirely destroyed. 
This clearly points forward to Nebuchadnezzar's ultimate re- 
covery from his madness. 

15 (12). b) Even with a band of iron and brass. This ex- 
pression is certainly difficult. It can hardly refer to the stump 
which would not have been confined in this way 10 , but must rather 
be a figure for the restraint which Nebuchadnezzar is to endure 
while siufering from his malady * 1 , e. g. he was to be confined 
in a field with the herds (see on v. 21). The only possible 

9 See below, p. 86. 10 So v. Lengerke who refers it to the iron 

bands with which a tree is sometimes enclosed to keep it from 
splitting (sic). 11 The idea of Jerome that this refers to the chains 
with which madmen (furiosi) are bound is not satisfactory. There is 
nothing to indicate that Nebuchadnezzar became a furiosus in the 
sense of being a dangerous madman. 


explanation of the term is that we have here a mixture of 

15 (12). c) In the tender grass of the field explains the pre- 
ceding phrase "with a band of iron and brass", typifying the 
king's confinement with the herds. It is by no means necessary 
to regard this with Behrmann as an interpolation (p. 26) 12 . The 
same expression occurs v. 23. 

16 (13). a) Let his heart be changed from man's, etc. 
His human intelligence shall cease temporarily and he shall 
think and act like a beast. For the discussion of the nature 
of Nebuchadnezzar's insanity, see above pp. 32-5. 

16 (13). b) Let seven times pass over him. "Times" must 
mean "years", as in vii. 25 13 . The indefinite number "seven" 
was used intentionally, in order to make the period uncertain. 
This is part of the punishment. The exact duration of his 
disease is not to be made known to the king. He is to 
suffer during Jhvh's good pleasure. 

17 (14). The decree of the watchers ..... the word of 
the holy ones. These are synonymous expressions in par- 
allelism. According to the angelology of the O. T., there is 
a sort of heavenly council made up of attendant spirits, angels, 
etc. This is seen for example from 1 Kings xxii. 19; Job 
i. 6; ii. 1. That their decree is identical with that of Jhvh 
may be seen from v. 24. The angels are not only counsellors, 
but more often direct executive emissaries of the divine will. 

19 (16). a) Was astonied for one hour. This is certainly 
incorrect. The word translated "hour" can mean "a moment, 
a short period of time", so that the correct rendering is "for 
a short time". The Seer has no difficulty in understanding 
the dream, but is staggered at first at its true significance. 

19 (16). b) The dream be to them that hate thee, etc. 
The author can hardly have meant to convey the idea that Daniel 
was especially friendly towards the king. He puts these con- 

12 See Karnphausen, p. 25. 13 Cf. also xii. 7. Some expositors 
translate "half-years", others "months", etc. 


dilatory words into his mouth, intending rather to imply thai 
the Prophet was afraid of the king's fury and wished to dis- 
claim all personal responsibility for the interpretation. 

20 (17). The writer displays great skill here in the state- 
ment of the dream by Daniel, leading up climactically to the 
application in v. 22 "it is thou, O king", etc. 

24 (21). The decree of the Most High. This was called 
"the decree of the watchers" in v. 17 (14), showing that Jhvh 
works through his messengers. 

26 (23). That the heavens do rule. "Heavens" here as 
a synonym for Jhvh is very interesting. It is used as a 
plural noun evidently intended as a plural of excellence, chiefly 
on the analogy of the ordinary Hebrew word for God; 'EloJum. 
It is also likely, however, that the author Mas influenced in 
his use of this plural word "heavens" by his idea regarding 
the hosts of angels u , although this was most probably only 
a secondary consideration. "Heavens" is not used elsewhere 
in the O. T. in this sense, but is common in the Apocrypha 15 
and Mishna to denote the Supreme Being. It is clearly a late 
Hebrew usage. The application of "heavens" in such a sense 
seems to have arisen from the conception that Jhvh was espe- 
cially the God of the Heavens (see ii. 18; 19; 44). In the N. T. 
also the heavens, e. g. the divine government, are regarded as a 
kingdom presided over by the eternal Father (cf. Matth. iii. 2 ; 
iv. 17, etc.). 

27 (24). a) Break off thy sin by righteousness and thine 
iniquities by showing mercies to the poor. It is highly 
striking that LXX. P. and V. translate "almsgiving" instead 
of "righteousness", in parallelism with the second member of 
the verse "showing mercies to the poor", and it is true that 
the word in later Hebrew 7 , as in Syriac and Arabic, has only 
this meaning. Such an injunction, however, to give alms to 
the needy, would hardly be appropriate in this connection ad- 

14 See v. 35 b and Behmiann, p. 29. 15 1 Mace. iv. 10; 24; 55. 


dressed to Nebuchadnezzar. The true sense of the passage 
appears to be indicated by the actual meaning of the word 
translated "poor" in the A. V., which should be rendered 
"oppressed, wretched ones". The original meaning is "bowed 
down". It seems to refer, not to the destitute generally, but 
especially to the oppressed of Israel in Babylon. This is in 
strict accordance with the use of the same word in the later 
Psalms. "Righteousness", therefore, can only mean here "gen- 
erosity, kindness". The whole passage should be translated: 
"Break off (i. e. cast away) thy sins by kind acts and thy 
iniquities by showing mercies to the wretched ones (of Jhvh)". 

27 (24). b) If it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity. 
There is some difference of opinion regarding this phrase 16 . 
It seems however that the best rendering is as follows: — "if, 
perchance 17 , there may be a duration of thy prosperity". The 
author probably intended to convey the idea that Nebuchad- 
nezzar's future welfare would depend on his treatment of the 
captive Israelites and accordingly holds this hope out as an 
inducement to the heathen king. There can hardly be any 
direct allusion here to Antiochus Epiphanes. The sentence is 
merely an assurance to the reader that the welfare of Israel 
is of the highest importance to Jhvh who will reward a 
heathen monarch greatly or punish him terribly, according to 
his treatment of the members of the chosen nation under his 
rule. That such a principle was highly appropriate to the 
Maccabsean period is of course apparent. 

29 (26). In the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. Trans- 
late "on (the roof of) the royal palace of Babylon"; cf. 2 Sam. 
xi. 2, where David is described as taking the air in the same 
place. It is a common custom in the East at the present 
day to sit and walk on the flat roofs of the houses during 
the evening and during the summer season even to sleep 
there. After constructing several great temples, Nebuchad- 

10 See below, philological note. " <=> mtwc; V. forsitan; cf. also 

Ezra v. 17. 


nezzar built a magnificent palace, provided with all the luxu- 
ries of the time. In the records of his reign, this building is 
alluded to as a proof of the glory of his majesty, in which 
the king rejoices because it is strong enough to keep out his 
foes l 8 . 

30 (''7). a) Is not this great Babylon etc. See above 
p. 31 for a description of the glories of Babylon under Nebu- 
chadnezzar. There can be no doubt that this speech of the 
king is quite in accordance with historical facts. 

30 (27). b) For the house of the kingdom, e. g. for his 
royal residence. 

31 (28). There fell a voice from Heaven. This is an 
audible, judgment in contrast to the visible one in the next 
chapter! 19 . 

33 (30). Till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers 
and his nails like birds' claws. LXX. compare the nails 
to the claws of a lion, but Q makes the hair like a lion's 
mane. There is no reason, however, to depart from the re- 
ceived text which keeps the parallelism. The bird referred to 
is not jthe eagle, but the Oriental great vulture. The com- 
parison' of bristly long hair with the long and thick plumage 
of thip bird is not inappropriate. In Ezek. xvii. 3 the "eagle" 
is said to be long-winged and full of feathers. 

34 (31). a) And at the end of the days, e. g. of the 
uncertain period of seven times (v. 23). 

34 (31). b) I N. lifted up mine eyes to heaven. The moral 
of the whole chapter is contained in this and the following 
verses. The idea seems to be that the king had been engaged 
in browsing on the grass like an animal. When his reason 
returned and he realized that he was a man, he accordingly 
lifted up his eyes. Be van 20 cites an interesting parallel for 
this expression from Euripides, Bacchae, 1265 flf. where the 
maddened Agaue did the same thing. Lifting up the head, 

18 See Tiele, Gescb. p. 449. in Behrmann, p. 30. 20 Dan. p. 96. 


rising to the natural human erect position and looking once 
more on the heavens, the seat of Divinity, indicates that the 
king had regained his senses and that he recognized the source 
of his humiliating punishment. He, therefore, proceeds to 
praise and honour the God of Daniel, as in ii. and iii., thus 
humbling himself before the divine Protector of Israel. 

35 (32). a) And all the inhabitants of the earth are 
reputed as nothing 21 . This is probably a reminiscence of Is. 
xl. 17. The expression "and none can stay his hand" may 
have been suggested by Is. xliii. 13. 

35 (32). b) The army of heaven. See 1 Kings xxii. 19; 
l F ciii. 21. This is plainly an allusion to the hosts of attend- 
ant spirits, the heavenly messengers, who have been men- 
tioned before as being instrumental in carrying out Jhvh's will 
on Nebuchadnezzar. This expression is a very ancient one 
appearing in the Babylonian account of the Creation 22 , e. g. 
"the hosts of heaven and earth", where it refers to the myri- 
ads of inferior supernatural beings who, according to the early 
Semitic conception, peopled all nature. "Hosts of heaven" 
Avas also in later times a synonym for the stars which were 
considered to be angels; cf. the imagery in Rev. ix. 1. 

35 (32). c) What doest thou; cf. Job ix. 12; Eccles. 
viii. 4. 

36 (33). a) At the same time my reason returned unto 
me. This is simply a reiteration of v. 34, in order to take 
up the thread of the narrative which had been broken tempora- 
rily by 34b-35. 

36 (33). b) And for the glory of my kingdom mine 
honour and brightness returned unto me. This translation 
is not incorrect. These words which are needlessly omitted in 
P. are perfectly clear. They can only mean that the king was 
once more restored to his throne in all his former glory. The 

21 For the word "nothing", see philological note. 22 K. 5419, 15; 
see also IV. R. 25, 49-50 b . 


repetition "returned unto mo" is intentional and is quite in keep- 
ing- with the .solemn style of the passage 23 . 

37 (34). This verse is the final summing up of the result 
of the king's punishment, e. g. his recognition of the God of 
Israel. Hitzig's idea that v. 37 refers to a separate occurrence 
from that recorded in v. 34 is entirely unwarranted 2 ' 1 . 


Contrast between Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar. 
The author takes quite a new departure in this and the 
following chapter, although the aim of these two last narrative 
sections is undoubtedly identical with that of the four pre- 
ceding ones; viz., the writer strives to depict here as every- 
where in the first part of the Book the certain humiliation of 
a heathen king who is hostile to Israel. In Cc. v. and vi., 
however, the subject is no longer the great king Nebuchad- 
nezzar, in whose reign the scenes of the first four chapters 
are laid. In C. v., we have the Biblical account of the fall 
of Babvlon in the reign of the great king's "son" Belshazzar 
who is represented as having been, not merely haughty and 
overbearing like his predecessor Nebuchadnezzar, but a blas- 
phemous enemy of Jhvh who, at a ribald banquet, actually 
profaned the sacred vessels of the Holy Temple at Jerusalem 
which had been brought to Babylon as spoils by Nebuchad- 
nezzar and deposited by him in the treasury of the heathen 
temple there. This is, of course, a direct allusion to a similar 
event in the author's own time (recorded 1 Mace. i. 20-23) 
and, as the sacrilege was perhaps the most fearful one conceiv- 
able by a Jew, so Belshazzar's act is almost immediately 

25 Hitzig translated: "and also the glory of my kingdom, my 
majesty and splendour returned unto me" (pp. 70—1), which is un- 
necessary. See Kamphausen, p. 26, Behrmann, p. 31 for full discus- 
sion. u Dan. p. 70. 


followed by the most terrible punishment imaginable; viz., his 
complete overthrow, and the passage of his kingdom to 
strangers by race and religion. The stories regarding the dis- 
cipline of Nebuchadnezzar and his recognition of Jhvh's power 
really rise to a climax in this chapter. The great king had 
never shown himself so dead to all religious feeling as actu- 
ally to insult Jhvh directly. He had merely been haughtily 
forgetful of his duties towards the people who were divinely 
committed to his care, but had always bowed to chastisement 
and freely acknowledged the power of Israel's God. In Bel- 
shazzar, on the other hand, we have the culmination of wanton 
irreligious vice which betrays a degradation of character too 
deep to admit of any improvement and which must, therefore, 
simply be crushed by a single blow. Such appears to be the 
author's idea in his brief character sketches of Nebuchadnezzar 
and Belshazzar. There can be little doubt that in this story 
of Belshazzar's fall we have the expression of a hope that a 
similar fate will overtake the persecutor and desecrator of the 
author's own time. 

The Historical Material of the Fifth Chapter. 
In order to arrive at the historical value of this account of 
the overthrow of the Semitic power in Babylon, it may be 
well to enter briefly into the history of that event, comparing 
the most important versions. 

The Account of Berossus. 
Previous to the discovery of the cuneiform inscriptions relat- 
ing to the fall of Babylon, comparatively little could be known 
accurately. The chief sources upon which historians were 
forced to depend were the account of Berossus, which Eusebius 
and Josephus took from Alexander Polyhistor, and the narra- 
tive of Herodotus, i. 188 ff. The statement of Berossus in 
Josephus, Contra Apionem, i. 20, is as follows: "Nabuchodon- 
osor . . . fell sick and departed this life when he had reigned 
forty-three years, whereupon his son Evilmerodach obtained 


the kingdom. He governed public affairs after an illegal and 
impure manner, and had a plot laid against him bv Neriglis- 
sar, his sister's husband, and was slain by him when he had 
reigned but two years. After he was slain, Neriglissar, the 
person who had plotted against him, succeeded to the king- 
dom and reigned four years. His son, Laborosoarchod, though 
but a child, obtained the kingdom and kept it nine months, 
but by reason of the very ill temper and ill practices which 
he exhibited to the world, a plot was laid against him by his 
friends and he was tortured to death. After his death the 
conspirators got together and by common consent put the 
crown upon the head of Nabonnedus, a man of Babvlon and 
one who belonged to that insurrection. . . . But when he was 
come to the seventeenth year of his reign, Cyrus came out of 
Persia with a great army, and having already conquered the 
rest of Asia, came hastily to Babylon. When Nabonnedus 
perceived that he was coming to attack him, he met him with 
his forces, and joining battle was defeated and fled away with 
a few of his troops and shut himself up within the city of 
Borsippus. Hereupon Cyrus took Babylon and gave order 
that the outer wall of the city be demolished, because the city 
had proved very troublesome, and cost him a great deal of 
pains to take. He then marched to Borsippus to besiege Na- 
bonnedus. As Nabonnedus, however, did not sustain the siege, 
but delivered himself up beforehand, he was kindly used by 
Cyrus who gave him Carmania as a place to dwell in, sending 
him out of Babvlon. Nabonnedus accordingly spent the rest 
of his life in that country and there died" 1 . 

The Account of Herodotus. 
Herodotus, i. 188 ff'., relates that the King of Babylon, Laby- 
netus, the son of the great queen Nitocris, was attacked by 

1 For this statement concerning the hanishment of Nabonidus to 
Carmania, cf. also Eusebius, Evang. Praep. ix. 40— 41; Chron. Arm. i. 10, 
the account of Ahydenus. 


Cyrus. The Persian king, on his march to Babylon, arrived 
at the river Gyndes, a tributary of the Tigris. While the 
Persians were trying to cross this stream, one of the white 
consecrated horses boldly entered the water and, being swept 
away by the rapidity of the current, was lost. Cyrus, exas- 
perated by the accident, suspended his operations against Baby- 
lon and wasted the entire summer iu satisfying his resentment 
by draining the river dry. On the approach of the following 
spring, however, he marched against Babylon. The Babyloni- 
ans, as he advanced, met and gave him battle, but were defeated 
and driven back into the city. The inhabitants of Babylon 
had previously guarded against a siege by collecting provisions 
and other necessaries sufficient for many years' support, so 
that Cyrus was compelled to resort to stratagem. He accord- 
ingly "placed one detachment of his forces where the river 
first enters the city and another where it leaves it, directing 
them to so into the channel and attack the town wherever the 
passage could be effected. After this disposition of his men, 
he withdrew with the less effective of his troops to the marshy 
ground . . . and pierced the bank, introducing the river into 
the lake (the lake made by Nitocris some distance from Baby- 
lon; see Herodotus, i. 185), by which means the bed of the 
Euphrates became sufficiently shallow for the object in view. 
The Persians in their station watched the better opportunity 
and when the stream had so far retired as not to be higher 
than their thighs they entered Babylon without difficulty". 
The account goes on to say that, as the Babylonians were 
engaged in a festival, they were completely surprised by the 
sudden attack and unable to defend the city which thus fell 
an easy prey to the invaders. 

The Cuneiform Records. 
The; two cuneiform documents relating to the fall of Baby- 
lon which have shed a wonderful light on this period of the 
world's history are the Cyrus Cylinder and the Annals of 


Nabonidus 2 . The former was discovered in 1879 by the work- 
men of Hormuzd Rassam in the ruins of Qaer at Babylon, 
a hill which, according to the opinion of Rassam, covers the 
remains of a great palace, i. e. that of Nebuchadnezzar. The 
tablet called the Annals of Nabonidus was obtained by the 
British Museum in 1879 from Spartoli and Co. The place 
where it was found is unknown, although Mr. Pinches declares 
dccidedlv that the document came from Babylon. It seems 
to belong to a series of annalistic tablets which were collected 
and preserved by the Aehsemenian kings. The Cyrus Cylinder 
is a highlv laudatory account of Cyrus's glorious entrance into 
Babvlon, evidently written by some scribe under the Persian 
rule, while the so-called Annals are a concise historical sum- 
mary of the events of the reign of Nabonidus until the ac- 
cession of Cyrus, a paragraph being devoted to the events of 
each year. 

The Developement of Cyrus' Power. 
Before passing on to the history of the advance of the 
Persians on Babylonia the following facts should be noticed. 
After Cyrus, king of the unimportant state of Ansan 3 , accord- 
ing to the record of the Annals, had got possession of Media, 
the Persian prince, finding himself transformed from the ruler 
of an insignificant province to the leader of a great kingdom, 
turned his eyes westward. Here Nabonidus the king of Baby- 
lon, who had at first regarded the defeat of his old enemies 
the Medes 4 as a direct intervention of the gods, now becom- 
ing alarmed at the sudden rise of this new power, concluded 
an offensive and defensive alliance with Lydia and Egypt, a 
league which should certainly have been sufficient to check the 
advance of the Persian forces. Lydia was compelled, how- 
ever, by the swift movements of the enemy to defend herself 

2 See Prince, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin, pp. 65 — 101. 3 See 
Appendix. 4 The Medes during the reign of Nabonidus had attacked 
and destroyed the city of Harran and the temple of the Moon-god; 
cf. V. P. 04, 12. 


without waiting for her allies. Cyrus, after totally routing the 
Lydian army at Pteria 5 , proceeded directly against Sardis, the 
capital, which he captured without difficulty and there estab- 
lished his permanent headquarters in the northwest. The Per- 
sian king did not hasten at once against Babylonia, his second 
powerful rival, but, after settling affairs in Lvdia and ap- 
pointing governours 6 over all the conquered provinces, returned 
to Ecbatana. 

The true historical Account. 

The following historical account of the approach of Cyrus 
on Babylonia and the fall of that empire may be gathered 
from the Annals of Nabonidus and the Cyrus Cylinder. 

The record of the Annals, which must have been very com- 
plete, is unhappily so mutilated that comparatively little can 
be learned about the early period of the invasion. We may 
conjecture from a very broken passage (c. ii. 1. 21—22) that 
the Persians may have made an invasion from Elam against 
Erech, in the tenth year of Nabonidus, but this is by no 
means certain. Where the text treating of the actual conquest 
of Babylon is legible, the matter seems practically to be deci- 
ded. It is stated that Nabonidus entered the Temple of 
Eturkalama (Annals, iii. 0), most probably to seek help from 
the gods. We may then conjecture, — the translation is very 
doubtful, — that a rebellion against his authority took place 

5 See Herodotus, i. 76. Note that Justin, Hist., i. 7, makes Cyrus 
begin the war with Babylon before that with Lydia, interrupting his 
conflict, however, in order to conquer Croesus who had offered aid {o 
Babylon. Sulpicius, Hist., ii. 10, passed directly from the Median con- 
quest to that of Babylonia. Croesus, king of Lydia, whom Cyrus 
captured, was according to Herodotus, i. 75, the brother-in-law of 
Astyages. Cyrus treated him kindly and gave him the city of Barene 
near Ecbatana as a residence, according to Ctesias, with five thousand 
riders and ten thousand bowmen as retinue. 6 See Herodotus, i. 15:!. 
The post of governor of Sardis was one of the most important positions 
in the Persian Empire. This official seems to have held the precedence 
over the neighbouring satraps. Compare Noldeke, Aufsiitze zur alt- 
persischen < Jeschichte, p. 21. 


on the lower sea. The god Bel was apparently brought out 
with a solemn religious festival (c. iii. 8. 9. 10), and, as a last 
resource, numerous deities were brought to Babylon as a pro- 
tection to that city. This, says the chronicler of the Cyrus 
Cylinder, so infuriated Marduk, the god of the city of Baby- 
lon, that he decided to deliver up Nabonidus to Cyrus (Cyl. 
10 ff. and 33, 34). In the month Tammuz (539 B. C.) Cyrus 
offered battle at Opis and apparently also on a canal (?) Sal- 
sallat, which evidently resulted in his favor. The Babylonians, 
defeated on all sides and disgusted with their feeble king, 
surrendered Sippar to the Persians on the 14th of Tammuz 
(539-538 B. C, see Annals iii. 14). As this city was the key 
to the whole sluice region it was important for Cyrus to get 
possession of it before he could besiege Babylon successfully. 
By breaking the dams at Sippar in case of need, the water 
could be cut off from all the plain. As we have seen, accord- 
ing to the account of Herodotus just given above, Babylon 
was said to have been captured by the device of drawing off 
the water of the Euphrates 7 , but the short space of time inter- 
vening between the capture of Sippar and Babylon seems to 
show that no such device was resorted to. Two days after 
the capture of Sippar (16 th of Tammuz), the gates of the 
capital itself were opened to Gobryas 8 , the governor of Gutium 
and commander of a section of the Persian army, who for- 

7 Cf. also Xenophon, Cyrop. vii. 5, 15. 8 In the record of the 
Cylinder no mention is made of Gobryas; it is simply stated that 
Cyrus and his army entered the city without battle. See Cyl., 16, 17. 
The Annals, however, give more details of the conquest and, moreover, 
are a strictly impartial account. It is much more nattering to Cyrus 
to attribute to him, as in the Cylinder, all the glory of the capture 
and not to mention any of his generals. It is interesting to notice 
that Xen., Cyrop., vii. 5, 24 ff. , has also preserved the account of 
the capture of the city by Gobryas, making him, however, a great 
Assyrian leader, who, desiring vengeance on the king of Babylon for 
the murder of his only son, allied himself with Cyrus. According 
to Xenophon, Babylon was taken by the two generals, Gobryas and 
( i adates. 

Prince, Daniel. 7 


mally took possession of the city in Cyrus's name "without 
strife or battle". 

Nabonidus, who had fled to Babylon after the capture of 
Sippar, was taken prisoner and held to await the coming of 
Cyrus. Here again, owing to a doubtful text, we are reduced 
to conjecture. The Babylonian party seems to have wished to 
use the temples as storehouses for arms(?), for the troops of 
Gobryas surrounded them and guarded them carefully. 

Four months later, on the third of Marchesvan, Cyrus him- 
self entered the city of Babylon and decreed peace to all, 
appointing his general Gobryas governour of the city and send- 
ing back to their own shrines the gods which Nabonidus had 
brought to Babylon. The Persian monarch was received with 
great rejoicings by the nobles, priests and people, who hastened 
to declare their allegiance (Cyl. 18). He then assumed for- 
mally the title of king of Babylon and of Sumer and Akkad 
(Cyl. 20), receiving the homage of the tributary kings of the 
westland 9 (Cyl. 28). It is probable, in accordance with the 
account of Berossus, given above, that Cyrus dismantled to 
some extent the fortifications of Babylon soon after its capture. 
That he cannot utterly have destroyed the defences is evident 
from the fact that the city stood repeated sieges during sub- 
sequent revolts; one under Cyrus, two under Darius Hystaspis, 
and one under Xerxes 10 . Judging from the assertion of Je- 
rome 11 that the walls had been repaired and renewed as an 
enclosure for a park, they were probably at no time completely 

9 Gaza alone in the land of the Philistines seems to have refused 
tribute and offered resistance; see the citation to Valesius Polyb., xvi. 40, 
quoted by Noldeke, Aufsatze, p. 23. n. 2. 10 See G. Rawlinson, 
Herodotus, p. 425, n. 5. For the second revolt of Babylon, see Herod., 
iii. 153—160, the story of Zopyrus. A curious work regarding Zopyrus 
is that of Joh. Christoph. De Zopyro Babylonios fallente , 1G85. 
11 Comm. on Isaiah iii. 23; ed. Vallarsi, iv. p. 180. 


The causes for the Pall of Babylon. 

The causes which led to the fall of the Babylonian dynasty 
and to the transferring of the empire to the Persians are not 
difficult to determine. 

Nabupaluqur, the father of the great Nebuchadnezzar, was 
the first independent king of Babylon after the overthrow of 
Assyria. After an uneventful reign of twenty-one years he 
was succeeded by his son Nebuchadnezzar, the real founder of 
the empire of Babylon. He was not only a great warrior, the 
terror of whose arms was felt as far as Egypt, and who, by 
his conquests made Babylon the political centre of a mighty 
empire, but also a lover of art and architecture, who prized 
his reputation as the restorer of the capital far more than his 
military fame 12 . As remarked above, Nebuchadnezzar was the 
greatest name in Babylonian history, the culminating point of 
Babylonian glory. After his time the kings were weak, incapable 
characters, judging from the account of Berossus, not even able 
to protect their own crowns. The last king, Nabonidus, though 
better than his immediate predecessors, was the creature of a 
conspiracy against his youthful predecessor Labasi-Marduk. 
Nabonidus was probably not of royal blood, as it is stated in 
the record of Berossus that he was a man of Babylon, and he 
calls himself in his inscriptions, the son of a noble 13 . 

It will appear, therefore, that the seeds of decay were ripen- 
ing fast, as early as the beginning of the reigu of this king, 
who, had he been a different character, might have delayed the 
final catastrophe at least beyond his own lifetime. But Nabo- 
nidus, as is evident from the tone of the records of his reigu, 
was by nature a peaceful prince, whose taste lay not in govern- 
ment or conquest, but in archaeology and religious architecture. 

Vi See above p. 31. 13 Compare the account of Berossus given 

above and the record of Abydenus quoting Megasthenes as saying 
that "Labassoracus" being destroyed, they made Nabonidus ii«ot%t« 
7iQoarjxoi/T(c ol ovdev "king having no claim to this rank"; see Euseb. 
Prsep., Evang., ix. 40,41; Euseb., Chron. Arm en. i. c. 10. 



His inscriptions are one long list of temples repaired u and pious 
duties performed. Under his feeble sway the vast and hetero- 
geneous empire, lacking the strong hand of a conquering 
ruler to punish defection and protect his subjects from for- 
eign attacks 15 , naturally began to fall to pieces, until finally 
the Babylonian name in Western Asia, becam^ more a shadow 
than a reality. 

Toward the close of his reign Nabonidus showed himself 
even more incapable than in his earlier years, for while devot- 
ing especial attention to the repairing and maintenance of the 
temples, he entirely neglected the defences of the capital, 
choosing to live in Tenia rather than in Babylon, and evidently 
leaving all military matters to his son, who, as shown above 
(p. 37), was probably in command of the army. Practically 
no steps seem to have been taken either to prevent the ad- 
vance of the Persians or to meet them when they came, so 
that when Cyrus arrived, he probably found a people discon- 
tented with their king and ready to exchange his rule for a 
firmer sway. The fact that both Sippar and Babylon were 
taken by the Persian forces "without battle" certainly seems 
to show that there existed a powerful faction in Babylonia in 
league with the invaders. 

It is possible that the priests of Marduk in the city of 
Babylon were especially instrumental in bringing about the 
final blow. We have already noticed that the priesthood was 
probably hostile to BeUarugur the crown-prince. It can easily 
be imagined how, disgusted with the king's neglect of the reg- 
ular offerings and finally, infuriated with his infringement on 
the jurisdiction of their god by introducing strange deities into 

14 Hagen in the BA. ii. p. 237, note, gives a complete list of the 
temples repaired by Nabonidus. 1B The king seems to have been 
unable, either to prevent the attack of the Medes on Harran, or to 
punish them for their destruction of the city. He was equally 
powerless to resist the expedition of Amasis of Egypt against Cyprus, 
by which several cities were captured. See Tiele, Gesch. p. 468. 


Babylon, they would naturally have cast their influence in favour 
of a change of rule 16 . It must be remembered that the priests 
exercised the most powerful influence in Babylonian affairs, 
being even stronger than the royal house. The inscriptions of 
every sort point to the supremacy and importance of the reli- 
gious classes, one of the most constant themes of these docu- 
ments being the frequent allusion to buildings of temples, tem- 
ple gifts, restoration of offerings, etc. This prominence of the 
priestly classes is to be explained by the fact that they were 
the custodians of all knowledge. The arts of writing, astro- 
nomy, and magic were their peculiar provinces. It will readily 
be understood, therefore, that their favour or disfavour would 
turn the scale in an attempt against the reigning dynasty. In 
addition to this it may be supposed that the large Jewish 
element which had been transplanted to Babylon by Nebuchad- 
nezzar and which could not be expected to feel especially 
well disposed toward the Babylonian dynasty, probably played 
a considerable part in the final conspiracy. Their reasons for 
so doing were of course not identical with those of the rebel- 
lious Babylonians. It may be supposed that the native Baby- 
lonians, glad at any price to be rid of their incompetent ruler, 
were forced to make the best of a foreign supremacy, while 
the religious element among the captive Jews, to whom per- 
mission to return to Palestine may have been promised be- 
forehand 17 , certainly regarded Cyrus as the Anointed of Jhvh, 

16 Nabonidus was certainly not a reactionary heretic who tried' to 
introduce a Sin cult; (so Floigl, Cyrus und Her., p. 2) first, because 
the king did not confine his attention to Sin (cf. the list of the tem- 
ples repaired, Hagen, BA. ii. p. 237 note,) and secondly, as Tiele has 
pointed out (Gesch., p. 460), it was the priests of Marduk who inspired 
him to repair the temples and to give attention to the cults of other 
deities. Compare V. R. 64, 16, where Marduk reveals his will in this 
connection to Nabonidus in a dream. The insult to Marduk which 
turned the scale against the king was his criminal slothfulness about 
protecting Babylon and his introduction of other gods into Marduk's 
own city. n Compare the enthusiastic prophecies regarding the 
destruction of Babylon and the references to Cyrus, the shepherd of 


who would carry out His will in every respect and utterly 
destroy Babylon and its gods, a hope which Cyrus was wise 
enough not to realize. 

The Feast. 
That a festival, as mentioned in the Book of Daniel, actually 
took place ou the eve of the capture of Babylon is not at all 
improbable ' 8 . Although we have no parallel account of such 
an event in the inscriptions 19 , it certainly seems rather signi- 
ficant that both Herodotus and Xenophon allude to a feast at 
this time. As we have seen, according to Herodotus i. 191, 
Babylon was captured while the besieged were oif their guard 
during a festival. Xenophon also, alluding to the capture of 
Babylon, says that Cyrus had heard that a feast was going 
on 20 . Of course, the allusion in Jeremiah li. 39, referred to 
in Rawlinson's Herodotus, i. p. 424, is merely general and 
cannot be understood as referring to a final festival. 

Correct Traditions. 
It is now demonstrated by the cuneiform inscriptions that 
at least the name Belshazzar 21 , not found elsew T here in the 

God, Isaiah, xiii. xiv. xliv. 28; xlv.; ?P cxxxvii; Jer. 1— li. Cyrus per- 
mitted the Jews to return to their old home in the first year of his 
reign— 537 B.C. See Ezra, i. The prophecies of the destruction of 
Babylon were certainly not carried out, the only one fulfilled to the 
letter being that regarding the return of the Jews. 

18 It may not be uninteresting to note, that Havemick, Dan. p. 176, 
following Vorstius, Exercit. Acad. p. 4 identified this final feast of 
the Book of Daniel with the laxuiu which, according to Ath emeus 
(Deipnosoph. xiv. 639), corresponded to the Saturnalia. 1B In the 
Annals of Nabonidus, iii. 8, mention is made of a religious festival 
(the New Year's feast) which took place probably about twelve months 
before the capture of the city. This, Andrea, Beweis des Glaubens, 
1888, p. 257, etc., believed to be the festival of the Book of Daniel; 
a highly improbable theory. 20 Cyrop. vii. 5, 15. 21 See above 
pp. 35 ff. It is interesting to note that the Babylonian proper names 
in Daniel seem to be for the most part genuine, although of course 
it cannot be supposed that the author understood their meaning. 
Compare in this connection the names Arioch, Belteshazzar, and 
Abednego which are traceable to a Babylonian origin, and see further 


Old Testament, is based on correct tradition, notwithstanding 
the errors into which the author fell regarding the 'person of 
the last king. Although undoubtedly wrong in considering 
Belshazzar the last king of Babylon, the writer of Daniel may 
have been influenced in this particular by tradition. Belsarugur 
was the son of the last king, and was probably, as stated 
above p. 37, in command of the army and actively concerned 
in the conflict with the invading Persians. We canuot doubt 
that he was a person of great political prominence in the em- 
pire, and it is even possible that he may have been possessed 
of more influence than his father. If this were the case, a 
legend making the crown-prince the real king is easily to be 

The author of Daniel seems to be approximately correct 
concerning the death of Belshazzar. The Biblical Belshazzar 
was slain on the eve of the capture of the city by the Persians, 
and it is extremely likely from a new reading of a mutilated 
passage in the Annals of Nabonidus (iii., 1. 23), that Belsarugur 
the king's son met his death soon after the capture of Baby- 
lon by Cyrus's forces. If the reading which I have adopted 
of this passage of the Annals be correct 22 , it is probable that 
after the capture of Babylon, Belshazzar with a remnant of 
the royal forces made a last despairing resistance which Avas 
crushed by Cyrus's general Gobryas, and that the patriot prince 
thus met his death at the hands of the invader 23 . The Annals 

Friedr. Delitzsch in the Preface to Baer and Delitzsch, Text of Ezra, 
Nek. and Daniel. It is instructive te observe here the difference 
between the genuine names in Daniel . and the spurious character of 
those in the book of Judith, showing the supei'iority of the tradition 
followed by the author of Daniel. 

22 See Prince, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin, p. 89. 23 It should 
be noticed that both of the Babylonian rebels against Darius Hyst- 
aspis gave themselves out to be Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabonidus. 
This certainly seems to show that at that time Belsarucur, the first- 
born son of the king, was generally known to be dead, as other- 
wise his name would have served as a more promising catchword for 
rebellion than that of a younger prince. According to Behistun, 1, 16; 


go on to say that a solemn mourning was then instituted, 
probably by order of Cyrus himself. 

Of course nothing certain about this event can be known 
until a duplicate text be discovered which shall supply the 
missing words of the mutilated passage. If the interpretation 
here given is correct, the agreement of both Herodotus and 
Xenophon, as well as of the book of Daniel, that the last king 
of Babylon was slain at the time of the capture of the city, 
may be a perversion of this account of the death of the king's 
son. It is interesting to note here that the author of Isaiah 
xiv. 19, clearly expected the destruction of the last king of 
Babylon with the overthrow of the city. We may conclude, 
then, that in the case of the Book of Daniel, the tradition 
which the author followed in calling the last king Belshazzar, 
may have arisen from the prominence of the son of Nabonidus 
during his father's reign, and perhaps especially towards its 
close, in the government of Babylon; and that the allusion 
to Belshazzar's death about the time of the capture of Baby- 
lon possibly had its origin in the death of the king's son at 
the hands of the Persians. 

The preservation of the name Belshazzar, found only here 
in the Old Testament, and now confirmed by the cuneiform 
inscriptions, the approximately correct statement regarding his 
death, and the striking agreement just mentioned of the record 
of Herodotus and the Biblical account would seem to show, 
therefore, that the story of the fifth chapter of Daniel may 
not altogether lack an historical element. 

The fifth chapter of Daniel falls naturally into four para- 
graphs; viz., the profanation of the Temple vessels, 1-4; the 

3, 13; 4, 2, the names of these two rebellious chiefs were Nadintabel, 
son of Amri, who seems to have been for a short time successful in 
his rebellion, as there are a few contracts dating from the first year 
of his reign (Hommel, Gesch. p. 787, n. 1), and Arakh an Armenian, 
son of Handikes. Nothing is known of this Nebuchadnezzar, son of 


portent, 5-12; the entrance of Daniel, 13-16; his interpre- 
tation of the prophetic sentence and its fulfillment, 17-25. 

1. a) A great feast. The Babylonians were celebrated for 
the luxury of their private life, cf. Curtius v. 1 "the Baby- 
lonians are very much given to wine and to whatever pro- 
duces drunkenness". 

1. b) Before the thousand, e. g. facing them. At such a 
feast the king would naturally sit facing his lords at a sep- 
arate table ; cf. 1 Sam. xx. 25, where it is stated that the 
king sat during his meal on a special seat by the wall. The 
Assyrian kings when eating also sat apart in this way; cf. 
fig. 33 in Kaulen's Assyrien und Babylonien, p. 54, represent- 
ing a monarch taking his meal surrounded by servants and 
protected by the gods. It is recorded 24 , furthermore, that 
this was also the custom of the Persian and Parthian kings 
at festivals 25 . The expression "drank wine before the thou- 
sand" does not mean that the king pledged them a toast 26 , 
but is rather an indication that the author wished to lay 
stress on the bad example set by Belshazzar 27 in thus feasting 
riotously before such a great number of people. Athenseus 
says, loc. cit. 2i that the Persian kings generally had about 
twelve guests when they feasted. 

2. a) While he tasted the wine 28 . This translation is 
incorrect. It should be rendered: "being under the influence 
of the wine". R. Salomo and Ibn Ezra understood the pas- 
sage correctly, translating "at the bidding of the wine" 29 . 

2. b) Commanded to bring the golden and silver ves- 
sels. The author evidently regarded this as a terrible pro- 

24 Athenseus, Deipnosopbistae, Bk. iv. 26, on the authority of Hera- 
clides of Cuma; Posidonius, De Parth. i.v; in Athen. iv. 38. 25 For 
ancient customs regarding the royal table, see Jahn. Biblical Arche- 
ology (Upharn) § 227. " Bertholdt, Dan. p. 364; Havernick, Dan. 
p. 174. 27 Behrmann, p. 32. M See Havernick, p. 174; Kranich- 
feld, p. 214;, Hitzig, p. 79, etc. " Cf. Havernick, p. 175. LXX 'Evoipov- 
Htvog tend rov oivov; & sv rfi ytvaei tov otvov; V. jam temulentiis. 


fanatiou (see v. 23). Havernick's strange idea 30 that Belshaz- 
zar wished to honour Jhvh by using the sacred vessels, 
finds no confirmation in the text. That the vessels were not 
sent for until the king was well in his cups, seems to show 
that the author wished to represent the command as a drunken 
whim. These vessels were brought to Babylon by Nebuchad- 
nezzar at the time of the first capture of Jerusalem (597 
B. C.) in the reign of Jeconiah (2 Kings xxiv. 13), and were 
restored by ( Yrus in the first year of his reign at the time 
of the return of the exiles (Ezra i. 7 ff.). The allusion to the 
vessels being brought from Jerusalem to Babylon was first 
made C. i. 2. 

2. c) His wives and his concubines. The wife of the 
king who held the rank of queen was among the Assyrians 
and Babylonians usually she who bore the first son 31 . As it 
is well known that the greatest freedom of life prevailed at 
Babylon, especially with regard to the relations between the 
sexes, there is nothing incongruous in the statement that 
women were present at feasts. According to Curtius 5. 5, 
they were admitted to chinking bouts 32 . Regarding the 
Persian customs in this matter, accounts vary. According to 
Josephus 33 , it does not seem to have been proper for women 
to be seen by strangers. On the other hand, if the record 
of Esther can be trusted thus far, the queen consort seems 
to have been able to invite men high in rank to dine with 
her and the king (Esther v.). In Herodotus, too (5. 18), it is 
stated that not only the concubines, but also the young wives 

1 Dan, pp. 175 ff. 31 Cf. Delitzsch-Murdter, Gesck. p. 118. 
M Curtius says: "Feminarum concivia ineuntium in prmcipio modestus 
est habitus; dein summa quaeque amicula exuunt, panlatimque pudwem 
profemant; ad ultimum (honos auribus sit) ima corporum velamento 
projiciunt; nee mcretricum hoc dedecus est sed matronarum mrgimmgue 
aim/! quas comites habctnr mlgati corporis vilitas". See also Her. v. IS. 
33 See Ant. xi. (>, 1, referring to Esther i. 10; 12, the refusal of Vashti 
to obey the king's command to present herself before him and his 


wore accustomed to bo present at Persian feasts. Plutarch, 
however, asserts (Sympos. 1. 1.) that concubines were allowed 
at feasts, but not wives 34 . 

It is worthy of notice that the Septuagint makes no men- 
tion of the presence of women in this passage of Daniel. 
The probability is that the translator deliberately omitted it, 
as being repugnant to his ideas of propriety 35 . 

3. a) — Verse 3 is a good example of the repetition of 
the narrative style. One codex omits it altogether, — see 
Bertholdt, Daniel p. 368. n. 4. 

3. b) The golden vessels. Insert here the words "and 
silver", e. g. "the vessels of gold and silver"; so and V. 

5. a) Over against the candlestick, e. g. opposite the 
light where the writing could be most easily seen. 

There is a double Greek translation of vv. 1,4 and 5 36 . 
In this verse the words written on the wall are transferred 
from v. 25 and the following interpretation is given : mane 
"it is numbered"; phares "it is taken away" and, thelcel "it 
is weighed". 

5. b) Upon the plaster of the wall. A plain stucco 
work or simple painted plaster. In the ruins of the palace 
at Nimroud a thin coating of painted plaster was discovered 
by Layard, the colours of which when first found were still 
fresh and brilliant 37 . The interior of the later Babylonian 
houses was frequently painted, on the lower half of the wall 
more in figures, but above ornamentally 38 . That plaster 
mixed with ashes was used for mortar is evident from the 
ruins of Ur (Mugheir), but it is probably a later develop- 
ment. Plaster seems to have been known also in Palestine; 
cf. Josephus, Antiquities, viii. 5. 2., describing Solomon's pal- 

34 Cf. Pusey, Dan. p. 382, vi. 2. This statement was applied to the 
Parthians by Macrobius, Saturnalia, Lib. vii. 1; cf. also Justin, xli. 3. 
3S So Havernick, p. 180. 36 For the variants, see Pusey, p. 502. 
See pp. 112 tf. 3T Nineveh ii. p. 203; also Kaulen, Assyrien u. Bab. 
pp. 52; 109; 262. 38 See Reber, ZA. i. p. 303. 


ace; "but the other part up to the roof was plastered over 
and, as it were, embroidered with colours and pictures 39 . 

The feast of Belshazzar is represented by the author to be 
in a room or hall, and not necessarily in a garden (v. Lengerke), 
or pavilion (Hiivernick). Hezcl (cited Bcrtholdt, Daniel p. 369) 
thought that it was in the inner court of the palace ('.'). 

5. c) And the king saw the part of the hand that 
wrote. For "part", translate "surface of the hand". It is 
interesting to note in this connection that so great a scholar 
as Johann David Michaelis, of Gottingen, was the author of 
the following wild but amusing theory. He translated the 
expression "surface of the hand" by "the inner surface or 
palm of the hand". That is, the hand must have appeared 
to the king as if writing from the other side of the wall, 
which by some mysterious means had become transparent! 
The idea in the author's mind seems to have been that the 
king saw the outline of the miraculous hand which appeared 
above his couch. 

6. The joints of his loins were loosed. The loins were 
regarded as the seat of both fear and suffering, cf. Ezek. 
xxi. 12; H s lxix. 24; Deut. xxxiii. 11; Is. xxi. 3; Nah. ii. 12. 

7. a) Shall be clothed with scarlet and have a chain 
of gold about his neck. Better "should wear scarlet and 
a chain of gold about his neck". There is no need to supply 
"have" as does the A. V. 

The darker purple scarlet was a colour held in high esteem 
in antiquity. Compare Ezekiel xxvii. 7; Esther viii. 15, Herod- 
otus 3.20, and Xenophon, Cyropaxlia 1.3.2: 8.5.18. We 
may remember the pnirpurati of the Persian kings who wore 
the vuxvdvq. Oriental sovereigns sent robes of this colour tit 
their vassals very much as the popes sent the pallium in the 
middle ages (1 Maccabees x. 20 : xiv. 43. 44.). The Syriac 
chronicle of the .Jacobite primate Gregory Bar Hebraeus 

M In this connection, cf. Jahn, op. tit. tj 89. 


(1226-1286 A. D.) relates how the Sultan Masud sent a purple 
robe to a favourite who had done him a service. 

A gold chain seems to have been worn by the higher class 
Persians (Xenophon, Anab. 1. 8. 29). It was given as a sign 
of special favor (cf. Herodotus, 3. 20: Anabasis, 1.27, and 
Jahn, op. cit. § 130). The idea may have been suggested by 
the account in Gen. xli. 42 of a similar honour shown to 

7. b) Third in rank, i. e. after Nabonidus and Belshazzar. 
Probably not "one of the board of three", following chapter 
vi. 3, although the translation is possible 40 . The old idea 
was that Daniel was to be second Vizier, the first Vizier being 
called the "second" after the king 41 . Kautzsch 42 , thought 
that it probably meant after Nabonidus and the queen-mother. 

8. Then came in all the King's wise men, etc. This 
is precisely the same idea as in ii. and iv. The heathen 
astrologers are unable to interpret the mystery and the king- 
is compelled to turn to the Prophet of the true God ; cf. above 
on iv. 9 (6). 

10. a) The queen here must mean either the chief wife 
or the mother of the king. It has been stated, however, in 
w. 2 and 3 that the wives of the king were already present 
and this fact and the tone of command which the author 
gives his "queen" in this passage seem to show that he con- 
sidered her not the wife, but the mother of Belshazzar. That 
the queen-mother was meant was the opinion of the majority 
of the older commentators 43 . 

The queen-dowager was a powerful and important per- 
sonage in ancient tunes; cf. 1 Kings xv. 13; 2 Chron. xv. 16. 
As at present, she ruled during the minority of the king and 
probably always had an advisory voice in the management of 

40 Cf. Kranichfeld, pp. 9; 21; Hitzig, p. 81, and more recently 
Siegfried, Theol. Lit.-Zeit. Jan. 10, 1891; Driver, introd. p. 460. 41 Cf. 
Esther x. 3; Havernick, p. 185; Lengerke, p. 251 etc. *- Gr. p. 121. 
43 For the Queen-Mother, see above p. 43. 


the government. In modern Tin-key, as was the case in an- 
cient Egypt, the queen-mother is a weighty factor in political 
affairs. A mono; the Hebrews the queen-dowager ranked after 
the king, but before his wives; cf. 2 Kings xxiv. 15. 

In the Assyrian letters the king's greeting to the queen- 
mother is of the most respectful character. Thus, in the letter 
translated by Delitzsch, BA. i. 187-188, we find the heading: 
"word of the king to the queen-mother, my greeting, greeting 
to the queen-mother". 

When the king greets a subject he uses the words "may 
thy heart be glad", but in the message to the queen-mother 
such an address woidd be disrespectful. In spite of the 
honour accorded by the king to his mother, it is interesting 
to notice that he never calls her "his Lady", a fact to which 
Delitzsch has called attention as indicating the evident su- 
premacy of the king. From the tone of the above mentioned 
letter the king was ready to carry out his mother's behests, 
but her commands must first have the royal sanction. For 
other references in the cuneiform inscriptions to the queen- 
dowager, cf. Delitzsch, op. cit. pp. 189; 192. 

10. b) By reason of the words, etc. Everything was in 
confusion (see v. 9) and the queen entered the hall to ascer- 
tain the cause of the uproar. 

11. The repetition of the words "thy father" at the end 
of the verse is not necessarily an anacolouthon (Kautsch, 
p. 163), but simply for emphasis 44 . The great king did it 

13. a) Art thou that Daniel? Better "So thou art Daniel", 
reflectively. If this translation be adopted, there is certainly 
no contradiction between this verse and the statement in 
C. viii. 27, that Daniel had already been in the service of 

4 * So V.: "et rex N. pater tuns principem majorum .... pater mguam 
Inns". The well known commentator, Moses Stuart, sometime Theo- 
logical Professor at Andover, was also of this opinion; see his Daniel, 
Boston, 1850, on this rerse. 


Belshazzar. The kiiig does not say "ait thou Daniel?", as if 
he had never before heard the name, but remarks reflectively 
"so thou art Daniel". The author certainly did not intend 
to represent in this address any latent scorn at Daniel's 
Jewish origin, according to Calvin's strange idea (followed by 
Havernick, Dan. p. 194). 

13. b) Whom the king, etc. The relative pronoun refers 
to the exiles and not to Daniel directly as the Vulgate has it. 
translates it correctly. 

15. The wise men, the astrologers. Simple asyndeton, 
cf. i. 20; ii. 27. 45. The Syriac version inserts the copula. 
Havernick, Dan. p. 194, and Bertholdt, Dan. p. 380, following 
0, supposed that the other classes of magicians had been 

17. a) Let thy gifts be to thyself, etc. Daniel refuses 
to accept the promised reward, because he is unwilling to be 
under any obligation to the dissolute Belshazzar. He had 
accepted, however, a similar honour from Nebuchadnezzar; 
see ii. 48. 

17. b) Yet I will read the writing. The author gives 
the Prophet time to examine and read the writing during the 
kmg's speech. The translators of LXX. thought it necessary 
to add: "Then Daniel stood before the writing and under- 
stood it and spake thus". 

18. a) O King — really "Thou O King" - a nominative 
absolute, as in ii. 29. 

18. b) Notice the contrast so strongly emphasized in these 
verses 18-20, between the great Nebuchadnezzar, and his in- 
significant successor. The point is, that if Nebuchadnezzar, 
the great king, suffered such punishment for his pride from 
the Most High, how much more then Belshazzar who has 
deliberately insulted the God of the Heavens by the profane 
use of His sacred vessels. 

21. And his dwelling was with the wild asses. The 
translation "wild asses" makes no sense, as no author would 


represent a mortal man taking up his abode with these swiftest 
denizens of the desert. The text should be changed so as 
to read "with the herds" 45 . For this legend regarding Nebu- 
chadnezzar, see iv. 25-34 and above, pp. 32 ff. 

23. a) And they have brought the vessels of his house 
before thee, etc. Herein lies the chief sin of Belshazzar 
for which he must suffer the worst possible punishment. 

23. b) Which see not, nor hear, nor know. Cf. l F 
cxxx. 16, 17. "They have mouths, but they speak not, eyes have 
they, but they see hot. They have ears, but they hear not, 
neither is there any breath in their mouths". Also *F cxv. 4 ff. 

23. c) Whose are all thy ways. Cf. Jer. x. 23: "O Lord, 
I know that the way of man is not in himself". "Way" here 
means "destiny". 

24. Then. This is correct. So P. Q and V. translate 
"therefore" which is inexact. 

25. a) Mene mene tekel upharsin. The first mene means 
"there have been counted"; the second mene "a mina"; tekel 
"a shekel"; upharsin "and (two) half minas", e. g. u "and", 
and parsin "half minas". The correct translation, therefore, 
is "there have been counted a mina, a shekel and (two) half 
minas". The mina alludes to Nebuchadnezzar, the shekel, 
one sixtieth 46 as valuable, points to the insignificant Bel- 
shazzar, while the half minas must refer to the double nation, 
the Medes and Persians, who are to destroy the power of 
Nebuchadnezzar. The exact interpretation would be: "There 

4S So J. D. Michaelis, Dan. p. 51. This is actually the reading of 
an old codex. 4B It is well known that the weight mina contained 
00 shekels, this shekel serving also as the smallest gold unit; i. e., 
a gold shekel weighed one sixtieth of the weight mina. The money 
mina on the other hand contained only 50 shekels. See Levy, Chal- 
daisches Worterbuch , under JOO and compare C. F. Lehmann, in Ver- 
handlungen der physikalischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, published Feb- 
ruary, 1890, p. 95, also Verhandlungen der Berliner Anthropologi- 
schen Gesellschaft, March, 1889, p. 249; Encycl. Brit. xvii. 031 and 
Haupt, ASKT. p. 55, 42: Qibit 1 ma-na, 12 Siqli-tan, "the interest of one 
mina is twelve shekels"; i. e , at 20 per cent. 


have been fixed by fate the reigns of the great king Nebu- 
chadnezzar, the Mina; of the insignificant Belshazzar his 
wicked successor, the shekel ; and the dominion of the Medes 
and Persians, the half minas, whose combined power is to 
equal that of Nebuchadnezzar". To stigmatize Belshazzar as 
far inferior to Nebuchadnezzar is quite in keeping with the 
whole tone of the chapter. 

This use of weights 47 to denote the value of persons is 
known in the Talmudic writings, where we find occasionally 
an inferior son of a worthy father called "a half mina son of 
a mina", while a son superior to his father is spoken of as 
"a mina son of a half mina", and a son equal to his father 
as "a mina son of a mina". 

It is possible, according to the theory advanced in my 
Thesis 48 , that there is an historical background for this ac- 
count of the mysterious sentence, although the whole question 
lies purely in the realm of conjecture. The sentence as it 
stands may be an Aramaic rendering of a Babylonian proverb, 
referring to the relative merits of Nebuchadnezzar and the last 
king of Babylon whom the Maccabsean tradition called Belshaz- 
zar. The proverb must of course have been originally in Baby- 
lonian, to which language it can easily be reduced (see below 
philological note). That it appears here in a rather unusual 
form of Aramaic may be a proof of its ancient character. 
The sentence may have arisen in Babylonia shortly after the 
Persian conquest and passed into the Aramaic of that period 
as a popular saying which our author considered appropriate 
to his subject and consequently incorporated into his tale of 
the fall of Babylon. There is no reason to suppose, because 
the writer does not translate the sentence literally in w. 26—28 

47 Compare Ta'anith 21 b , naa p tt32 ^SN 013 p nsa 6tt*< naitt 
: D~iS p fl3» b^x naa p h3s xni ^Xl "It is good that a mina son of 
a half- mina come to a mina son of a mina, but not that a mina 
son of a mina should come to a mina son of a half -mina", cited by 
Levy, Chald. Worterbuch, ii. p. 40. 48 Prince, Mene Mene Teke 
Upharsin, pp. 5-17. 

Prince , Daniel. 8 


that he did riot perfectly understand its meaning-. These 
verses following v. 25 were evidently intended to bo an ex- 
planation of the enigma and not a translation. The author 
must have supposed, however, that the words were written 
in some unusual way, as he states explicitly in v. 8 that the 
wise men could neither read, nor interpret the writing. It 
is not impossible that there were traditions even as late as 
the Maccabsean times regarding the ancient Babylonian double 
system of writing, e. g. the simple phonetic method, where 
the characters represented syllables, and the more complicated 
system of ideograms, each of which represented a whole word 
or idea. A sentence, therefore, could be written in such a 
way as to puzzle the most expert Babylonian scholar. 

On the other hand, some of the Talmudists thought that 
the words were written according to a cabbalistic alphabet, 
in which the first letter has the last as its equivalent 49 . It 
is interesting to note in this connection that a similar crypto- 
graphic method of writing involving the interchange of letters 
was known to the Abyssinians 50 . It is hardly worth while 
to discuss here the idea advanced by some other Talmudists 
that the characters of the mysterious sentence were arranged 
in a sort of table in three lines and were to be read verti- 
cally and not horizontally 51 . Thube and others at the end 

49 See Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldaicnrn Talmudicuni et Rabbinicum, 
col. 248, and Levy, Neuhebraisches und Chaldaisches Worterbuch under 
■pbxx, ~px, fi»i. ptag, howewer, is due to a process quite different 
to 2J2MS" For the opinion that the sentence was a cryptogram com- 
pare Pfeiffer, Dubia Vexata, p. 805, and for all these views see San- 
hedrim 22». 50 BA ij 110 . si g ee Ganneau, JA. Ser. viii. 1, p. 88. 
Some considered the sentence as an anagram; see Levy, under CDS; 
while two of the older commentators, Menochius and Maldonatus 
thought that only the initial letters of each word were written. They 
are quoted by Bertholdt, Daniel, p. 350. Jephet Ibn Ali, the Karaite, 
held the view that the words were written backward; for example, 
M3S was arranged as if it were d3fct, and that the letters of all the 
four words were similarly transposed. See Margoliouth's translation, 
p. 26. Pfeiffer, p. 808, expressed the opinion that the words worn 
written in "Chaldiean" letters which were intricately arranged. 


of the last century 52 held that the writing may have ap- 
peared in such unusual characters as to prevent its decipher- 
ment by the hierogrammatists; and the Gottingon Professor 
of Biblical Philology, the late Ernst Bertholdt, suggested that 
it may have been written in some complicated flourished 
handwriting 53 . 

It is possible, of course, that the author of Daniel, when 
he stated that the writing could not be read by the wise 
men, may have been thinking of the Babylonian ideographic 
system, or that he may have had in mind some cryptographic 
method of writing his own language similar to those just 
mentioned. It is much more likely, however, that he gave 
little thought to the detail as to how the writing was written. 
His aim was simply to describe the appearance of a portent; 
a mysteriously worded sentence written in unintelligible char- 
acters which conveyed no idea to the spectators until Daniel 
showed its application to the situation. The underlying thought 
seems to be that the power of Antiochus Epiphanes, like 
that of the wicked and sacrilegious Bclshazzar, was fast draw- 
ing to a close and that the suffering Israelites should soon 
be freed from their tyrant. 

It is very unlikely that the story of the miraculous appear- 
ance of the sentence has any historical background. The 
author probably used the legend regarding a feast which took 
place just before the capture of Babylon by the Persians as 
a basis for the account in the fifth chapter. Thinking that 
Bclshazzar was the last king of Babylon of the ancient line, 
he applied this story to him and added the episode of the 
miraculous warning, making use of a proverb perhaps origi- 
nally Babylonian and incorporating such further details and 
amplifications as were necessary' to bring out his moral. Of 
these, the profanation of the vessels was, in all likelihood, 
suggested by the plundering of the Jerusalem Temple alluded 

»« Cf. Bertholdt, p. 351. s3 Bertholdt, p. 379. 


to 1 Mace, i., while the account of the miracle is simply a 
variation of the warning visions seen by Nebuchadnezzar, 
described in i. and iv. 

In vv. 26-28, only one mene is repeated; viz., that mean- 
ing "mina", because it was not necessary to repeat the verb 
"counted", e. g. the first mene. 

25. b) Peres. Thy kingdom is divided and given to 
the Medes and Persians. Peres, the singular of parsin, is 
used intentionally here, to make a direct paronomasia with 
the word for "Persian"; paras. There is clearly a double play 
on words here with peres which is interpreted as meaning 
"thy kingdom is divided (Aram. p e risath) and given to the 
Medes and Persians" (p e rashi). 

Ancient history establishes the closest connection between 
the Medes and Persians u . The Greeks frequently applied 
the common term Medes indifferently to either nation. Thus 
the conflicts with Darius and his successors were called cither 
tcc Mrjdixa or tcc IlEQOiyia, while the Persian Great King who 
ruled in Susa was addressed as the "King of the Medes 55 . 
The Jews also, as is well known, regarded the Medes and 
Persians as two peoples closely allied in law and customs 56 
and indeed, previous to the discovery of the cuneiform in- 
scriptions, no one thought of doubting that the Medes as well 
as the Persians belonged to the Aryan race 57 . Of late years, 
however, serious doubt has been cast on the theoiy regarding 
the Aryan origin of the Medes by a number of scholars. 

Because in the trilingual inscriptions of the Achsemcnian 
kings, between the original Persian and the Babylonian trans- 
lation, another idiom appears, taking precedence over the 
Babylonian, certain scholars have believed this to be the 

s * For the history of the Medes, see above pp. 50 ff. DS Cf. Raw- 
Hnson, Five Great Monarchies ii. p. 306, n. 1.; Delattre, Medes, p. 5. 
56 Cf. Dan. vi. 8; 12; 15; viii. 20; Esther i. 3; 14; x. 2. R7 It is 
especially stated by Strabo, xv. 2; 8, that both the Medes and Persians 
used practically the same language. 


language of Media. This dialect of the second sort which 
was given such a prominent place in the royal inscriptions 
must be, it was thought, the idiom of the most important 
subject people of the Persian Empire, the Babylonian being 
necessarily excluded. They decided accordingly that it could 
only be the language of the Medes. Then, when an exam- 
ination brought to. light that it was neither a Semitic nor an 
Aryan idiom, they concluded that the Medes must have been 
a "Turanian" people. The principle on which such a sup- 
position rested is, that the choice and disposition of language 
in the Achsemenian texts depended on the relative impor- 
tance of the peoples who made up the Persian Empire. 

Although it would certainly be natural that the Persian 
kings should in their trilingual documents give the idiom of 
the most important subject-state the precedence, it still does 
not necessarily follow that the second language in these in- 
scriptions is that of Media. It cannot of course be denied 
that the Medes enjoyed a special prominence in the empire. 
Indeed, the place which they occupied in the inscriptions next 
to the Persians, and the fact that Medes are found in the 
most important and responsible positions seem to point to 
such a conclusion 58 . Part of their powerful influence may 
have been due to the sacerdotal caste of the Magi who were 
probably originally of Median origin. The very fact that the 
name Mede survived so long as almost a synonym for Persian, 
certainly seems to show that the individuality of the older 
people was extremely prominent throughout a long period of 
the Persian history. Delattre's remark (Medes, p. 18) that 
these considerations are somewhat weakened by the statement 
of the Annals 2. 1-4 that Cyrus plundered Ecbatana the 
Median capital, like an enemy's city, has no special force. 
Because the Medes by their superior civilization eventually 

58 Cf. Her. i. 156-157; Mazares, a Mede, quelled the revolt of 
Sardis against Cyrus; i. 162— 176, Harpagus, a Mede, carried on the 
war, etc. 


exercised a strong influence on the Persian people, it does not 
necessarily follow that Cyrus, probably the first Persian who 
came into close contact with Median culture, established directly 
such friendly relations with the conquered people as to ab- 
stain from plundering their capital, which had fallen to him 
by right of war. 

The influences of this Median culture, however, probably 
began to be felt by the rougher Persians very shortly after 
their subjugation of the Medes. Indeed, it seems very evident 
that those friendly relations between the two peoples, which 
lasted with but few interruptions until the Median name dis- 
appears from history, were early founded. 

While the strong influence of the Medes on the destinies of 
the Persian empire seems to have been an established fact, the 
actual province of Media was still very probably not the most 
important in the empire. Media alone was not even a distinct 
province, but according to Herodotus, 3. 92, with two neigh- 
bouring countries formed a single satrapy, paying annual tribute. 

It is contrary to the consensus of the ancient authors, as 
shown above, to regard the Medes as anything but Aryans 
and closely allied to the Persians. The statement of Strabo 
that both Medes and Persians used nearly the same language 
is confirmed by an examination of the extant Median proper 
names, nearly all of which are of marked Aryan character 59 . 
From the nature of these names Meyer concludes quite rightly 
that the rulers of Media at the end of the eighth century 
B. C. were of Aryan race. 

With regard to the opinion that the Medes were made up 
of two elements, "Aryan" and "Turanian", I cannot do better 
than paraphrase as follows the remarks of Weisbach (pp. 21 ff.). 
According to him, if this theory be accepted, four possibilities 
present themselves with regard to the language of the Medes. 

59 Her. iii. 444— 455 (Rawlinson 2 ); also Ed. Meyer, on the names of 
the Median chiefs cited in Delitzsch' Kosstwans, p. 48; Literaturblatt 
fur Or. Philologie (Kuhn) ii. p. 51. 


A. All Medes spoke Aryan. 

B. All Modes spoke an Aryan-Turanian mixed language. 

C. All Medes spoke "Turanian". 

D. The Aryan Medes spoke Aryan, the "Turanians" spoke 

In answer to the first two suppositions, it may be stated, 
that the language of the inscriptions of the second sort is 
clearly neither Aryan, nor a mixed idiom, for example, like 
modern Turkish, while the theory that all Medes spoke "Tur- 
anian" is made untenable by the statements, referred to a- 
bove, of the ancient authors who evidently regarded the Median 
language as Aiyan. The fact, too, that the Medes played 
such an important part in Persian history, and were for such 
a long time so closely and prominently connected with the 
latter people, could hardly have been the case had they been 
a totally distinct "Turanian" race. In the latter instance, while 
considerable influence might have been exercised by an en- 
tirely alien people, such a complete association and identifica- 
tion of interests as appear between the Medes and Persians 
could hardly have been expected. The tie of a common language 
must have been present to establish such a close union. As 
to the last idea, that part of the Medes spoke Aryan and part 
"Turanian", even if this were so, we would have no right to call 
the language of the "Turanian" Medes, "Median", as this term 
was applied by custom to an Aryan speech. To do so, would 
give rise to a confusion of names similar to that suggested 
by Weisbach (p. 22). He asserts quite rightly, that to call a 
"Turanian" language "Median" would be an error like calling 
the language of the Germans resident in Bohemia, "Bohemian", 
a term which is only applied to the idiom of the Czechs; the 
true Bohemians. In addition to this, however, there is no 
reason for supposing that the language of the Achsemenian in- 
scriptions of the second sort is that of "Turanian" Medes at all. 

If, as seems neccessary, the Medes must be regarded as 
entirely Aryans, to what people then are the non-Aryan non- 


Semitic Achaemenian inscriptions of the second soil to be 
ascribed? Here M. Delattre seems to have found the key to 
the solution of the problem. 

He advances the theory that, because according to Oppert 
and Sayce the so-called "Median" of the Acha?menian inscrip- 
tions has affinity with the Elamitic or Susian language, the 
people who used the doubtful idiom of the Persian documents 
were of Elamitic race. As a number of Persian loan-words, 
;ire found in the Achaemenian dialect, he further concluded 
that the people who spoke it must have been for some time 
closely connected with Persian influences. The fulfillment of 
both these conditions he finds in the natives of Ansan, the 
hereditary state of Cyras; i. e. he believes that the second 
Achsemenian language was the Elamitic dialect of Ansan, a 
theory which certainly deserves consideration, in that the 
language of Ansan, as the vernacular of the nucleus of the 
Persian empire, might have ranked directly after Persian and 
taken the precedence of Babylonian. 

As our knowledge of the language of Old Elam, however, 
does not yet permit a translation of the cuneiform inscriptions 
in that tongue, it seems impossible at present to make any 
definite statement concerning Elamitic dialects. Then, too, 
the fact that the Achsemenian second language and the Elam- 
itic are quite distinct though evidently allied languages height- 
ens the difficulty. In this connection, however, the great 
difference in time between the Achfemenian inscriptions of 
the second sort and the ancient documents of Susiana or Elam 
must not be forgotten. Sayce has found that the inscriptions 
of Old Elam are to be divided into two groups — the one 
written in characters closely allied to the Old Babylonian, 
while the second kind, the inscriptions of Mai-Amir present 
a later form which is closely akin to that of the Aclnemenian 
records of the second sort. According to Weisbach, it is 
possible to demonstrate by a number of examples that this 
form of the Achsemenian inscriptions, originally derived from 


the Babylonian characters, is a later development from the 
form found on the monuments of Mai-Amir. Weisbach refers 
in this connection to the list of characters given by Sayce in 
the Transactions of the Sixth International Oriental Congress. 

All that can be asserted at present seems to be that the 
three great languages of the Persian empire were Persian, the 
idiom of the second sort, and Babylonian. The second lang- 
uage may be a later form of the old Elainitic or Susian, con- 
taining a number of Aryan loan-words obtained through long 
intercourse with Aryan races; i. e. the Medes and Persians 
This is practically the opinion of Weisbach who calls the doubt- 
ful Achsemenian dialect "New Susian" and remarks that this 
idea agrees excellently Avith the order in which wc find the 
three idioms in the documents of the Persian Kings, — first, 
language of Persia; second, that of Susa or Elam, and third, 
that of Babylonia. As soon as it appears evident that the 
Achaemenian inscriptions of the second sort need not neces- 
sarily be in the language of the Medes, the Aryan race of 
the latter, in view of the reasons mentioned above, should 
not be called in question. 

In the twenty-eighth verse of the fifth chapter of Daniel 
the paronomasia on "Persian" may perhaps indicate that the 
author was not unaware of the dominant position of that 
people. The idea advanced by Lengerke that he used a play 
of words on Persian, because he could not pun on the word 
Mede, is untenable, because a derivative of the stem "to meas- 
ure" 60 , would have answered the purpose admirably. With 
regard to the question of the precedence accorded by the 
biblical writer to the older people, it is interesting to notice 
that the earlier references use the term Medes for both nations. 
Thus, in Isaiah xiii. 17, in prophesying the doom of Babylon, 
it is stated, "behold I will stir up the Medes against them", 
etc., and in Jeremiah li. 11, referring to the same subject, "the 
Lord hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes". 

60 Ti^a. A derivative like Ctta, cf. Kranichfeld, p. 227. 


Throughout the entire book of Daniel, wherever both nations 
are mentioned, the Medes have the first place, while in the 
book of Esther, Persia is put before Media, except in chapter 
x. 2, where an allusion is made to the book of the chronicles 
of Media and Persia, — perhaps an old record. 

The explanation of the gradual decadence of the Median 
name seems to be, that as the Medes in the course of time 
amalgamated and became practically identical with their Per- 
sian kinsmen, the name Persian came to be used in place of 
Mede. In fact the latter name seems to have completely dis- 
appeared under the Sassanidae. It was perfectly natural that 
two closely allied peoples speaking practically the same lang- 
uage and probably intermixing, should end by becoming one, 
and that the name of the dominant race should prevail. 

29. And they clothed Daniel with scarlet. It is possible 
to translate, "Belshazzar gave orders and they clothed Daniel, 
etc.", which would mean that the reward was conferred im- 
mediately, or, "Belshazzar gave orders to clothe Daniel", which 
does not necessarily imply that the commands were carried 
out; but that the death of the king may have prevented the 
fulfillment of the promise. In view of the frequent co-ordi- 
nation of sentences in cases where the subordinate character of 
one clause is apparent, the latter translation seems preferable. 

30. In that night was Belshazzar the King of the Chal- 
dseans slain. For the historical value of this statement, see 
above p. 103. 

31. a) And Darius the Median took the Kingdom. For 
full discussion, see above pp. 44 rf. This verse is incorporated 
wrongly with C. vi in M. and LXX. 

31. b) About three score and two years old. LXX. 
translate here "full of days and famous in old age", evidently 
from quite a different original text 61 . The king's age was 
given probably in order to indicate the brief duration of the 
Median power 62 . 

«" Cf. Behrmarm, p. 108. " 2 See Kamphausen, p. 29. 



The resemblance between this section and C. iii. has already 
been pointed out (p. 73). The author's aim here, as in iii., 
is plainly to emphasize the necessity of a strict observance 
of the worship of Jhvh, in spite of the commands or decrees 
of any heathen monarch. In vi., however, the writer has gone 
a step further than in iii., where the Hebrew friends of Daniel 
were merely required to honour an idol, but not necessarily 
to abstain from worshipping Jhvh privately. In vi., on the 
other hand, the royal decree goes forth that no petition shall 
be addressed during a given period to any being, god or man, 
save the king, so that even private prayer would be forbidden, 
by such a command. There can be little doubt that this 
extraordinary account is simply a bold literary device to re- 
present the hero Daniel in a situation where he must wor- 
ship the God of his fathers at great danger to himself. Both 
iii. and vi. are tracts, highly appropriate to the time of Anti- 
ochus Epiphanes, on the beauty and necessity of faithfulness 
to Jhvh who never fails to protect His own. 

It is highly improbable that there is any historical basis 
for the account of C. vi., and it is almost useless even to 
attempt to conjecture, as can be done to a certain extent in 
C. iii., regarding the sources of the fundamental traditional 
elements. It has already been shown above that Darius the 
Mede has no place in history, and, while it is possible that 
the extraordinary decree demanding practically divine honours 
for the king may have been suggested by the author's know- 
ledge that the ancient kings of Persia were treated as re- 
presentatives of the gods, it is very difficult to assert more 
than this. 

The sixth chapter should be divided into four paragraphs, 
as follows: — The decree, 1-9; Daniel's punishment, 10-17; 
his miraculous deliverance and the punishment of his enemies, 
18-24; the king's recognition of Jhvh's power, 25-28. 


1. An hundred and twenty princes. Better "satraps". 
For full discussion of this statement, see above p. 54. 

6. Assembled together. Literally "made a tumult"; hence, 
"swarmed tuinultuously before the king". This vivid ex- 
pression was undoubtedly chosen to show the violent character 
of Darner's enemies who had lost all sense of dignity in their 
unrighteous desire to overthrow the Prophet. 

7. a) All the presidents of the kingdom. With the ex- 
ception, of course, of Daniel who was one of them (v. 2). The 
inaccurate statement is not a contradiction of v. 2, but is 
simply a result of the hurried style. The idea is that all of 
the Persian officials wished that the prohibitory decree should 
be issued. 

7. b) That whosoever shall ask a petition, etc. That 
such a decree could ever have been issued even by a king 
claiming divine honours is most unlikely. The most that such 
a monarch could hope to effect would be to compel his sub- 
jects to include him in their pantheon. He could never have 
ventured to interdict the simultaneous worship of other divine 
beings, simply because of the obvious impossibility of enfor- 
cing such an order. 

?. c) The den of lions. Better: "pit of lions". This seems 
to be a reference to the practice of the later Assyrian and 
Babylonian kings of keeping lions in preserves for the chase l . 
Such a pit as is described here, however, which could ap- 
parently be closed from above like a cistern by a stone, very 
likely existed only in the author's imagination, as no animals 
could have lived in it for any length of tune. The wild ani- 
mals for the royal hunt, lions, tigers, wild boars, antelopes, 
etc. were generally kept in extensive parks constructed especi- 
ally for the purpose and carefully fenced in 2 . These parks 
were kept in excellent repair and extended by the later Per- 

1 .See Kaulen, Assyrien u. Babylonien, fig. 17, representing a lion- 
hunt. 2 Cf. Layard, Nineveh ii. 431. 


sian kings, all of whom were extremely fond of the chase. 
The Persians called such enclosures "paradises". Occasion- 
ally, the lions were kept in portable cages which, when the 
king wished to hunt, were brought out into the open, where 
the animals were released by a slave who raised a gate while 
standing on top of the cage. 

8. Establish the decree and sign the writing. This 
should be translated "cause the writing to be written", e. g. 
the document which set forth the interdict. So v. 10 "the 
writing and the interdict"; cf. Jer. xxxvi. 27 "the roll and the 
words"; also, Dan. iv. 10 "a watcher and an holy one", in all 
of which passages the "and" serves to connect synonyms. 

10. a) Now when Daniel knew, etc. The author makes 
Daniel deliberately disregard the blasphemous decree, in order 
to impress upon his readers the necessity of resisting all such 
attempts to encroach on or forbid the worship of Jhvh. 

10. b) His windows being open in his chamber. Liter- 
ally "his upper room". The windows were probably lattices 
such as are in common use at the present day in the East; 
cf. 2 Kings i. 2. That they could be drawn aside may be 
seen from 2 Kings xiii. 17. The author mentions the fact of 
the windows being open, in order to explain Iioav the offici- 
als discovered the Prophet's disobedience. 

10. c) Towards Jerusalem. The custom of facing Jerusa- 
lem while praying very probably originated at the tune of 
the Babylonian exile. The idea, which was also followed by 
Mohammed until he quarreled with the Jews, was to face the 
Temple, the centre of the Jewish religious life (see 1 Kings 
viii. 38; 44; 48). The orientation of many Christian churches 
and the eastward position, frequently observed during certain 
parts of the service, are survivals of this early Jewish custom. 

10. d) Kneeled upon his knees. See 1 Kings viii. 54. 
The prostrate posture in prayer was also observed, Neh. viii. G, 
while in Gen. xxiv. 26, bowing the head is mentioned as a 
reverent position for worship. 


10. e) Three times a day. According to the Jewish tra- 
ditions the custom of praying thrice during the day originated 
at the time of the "Great Synagogue" 3 . It is evident from 
the N. T. that the early Christians used the same practice- 
cf. Acts x. 9. It is difficult to known, however, just when this 
custom began. It is alluded to in *P lv. 18, which probably 
dates from the time of Jeremiah, and it may have been bor- 
rowed from the Persians during the Babylonian exile 

10. f) As he did aforetime. Better "inasmuch as he had 
been wont to do so aforetime". He deliberately disobeyed 
the decree, because it interfered with his regular pious custom. 

11. Then these men assembled. Literally "came together 
tumultuously", as in v. 7; probably beneath Daniel's open win- 
dow, where they could see him at his devotions. 

12. Hast thou not signed a decree? Better "caused to 
be written an interdict?" This abrupt address to the king 
without any preliminary respectful form is introduced pur- 
posely to emphaske the violent passion of the officials against 
Daniel and their evident use of the king as a mere tool. 
LXX. insert the words "O king Darius"; "O king", but 
no emendation of the sort is necessary. 

15. Know O king, etc. This is an impudent reminder to 
the king that he is powerless before his own law. 

16. Thy God .... He will deliver thee. The king says 
this to Daniel with affectionate solicitude. The author re- 
garded him merely as an instrument in the hands of his 
wicked courtiers. 

17. a) The mouth of the den. Sec above, p. 124 on v. 7. 
17. b) The king sealed it with his own signet. Every 

Babylonian of any importance at all carried a seal, generally 
in the shape of a cylinder, the most ancient form, which was 
used to stamp their baked-clay documents of all kinds. This 
almost universal custom was noticed by Herodotus i. 195. Jn 

3 Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vertriig*;; pp. 88; 866. 


cases where a man was too poor to own a seal he made an 
impression on the damp clay with his thumb. That seals in 
various forms were used also by the Persians is proved by 
the existence of many specimens dating from the Sassanian 
period*. Whether the author of Daniel clearly understood 
the character of a seal which would have been used by a 
Persian Babylonian king is doubtful. The word which he 
employs here makes it seem probable that he was thinking 
of a seal-ring. 

18. Instruments of music is probably a wrong translation. 
It should be "concubines" 5 . 

24-28. The fate of the slanderers of Daniel is the same 
swift punishment from Jhvh which overtook Bclshazzar and 
which must sooner or later overtake every blasphemer and 
opponent of Israel's God. The decree of Darius in vv. 25-28 
is the parallel of the proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar in iii. 
29 after the miraculous deliverance of the three companions 
from the furnace. The difference is that in iii. 29 Nebuchad- 
nezzar threatens those who refuse to worship Jhvh, while in 
vi. 25, Darius contents himself with simply commanding his 
subjects to honour the God of Daniel. Most of the sentences 
used here have appeared in the earlier chapters. 

28. In the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus 
the Persian. This shows conclusively that the author of 
Daniel had an entirely false idea regarding the fall of Baby- 
lon under the Semitic dynasty. He evidently thought that 
Darius the Mede preceded Cyrus the Persian 6 . 

4 Ancient West- Asian seals are found in cylinchical, conical, circular 
and rectangular form; cf. Ward, Seal cylinders and other Oriental 
seals (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Handbook 12). 5 See 
below, philological note. 6 See above, p. 54. 



The seventh chapter begins the second part of the Book, 
in which the author endeavours to console his readers by 
means of prophetic visions supposed to have been revealed 
to Daniel directly, but all having a direct reference to the 
Maccabsean period. The similarity between the subject matter 
of C. vii and that of C ii has already been mentioned above 
(pp. 9 ; 64). As both chapters, however, were not written from 
precisely the same point of view, there are of course some 
noticeable differences in the treatment of the four empires. 
These are due merely to the fact that C. ii was written from 
the historical and C. vii from the apocalyptical point of view. 
Indeed, the differences between ii. and vii. are those which 
exist naturally between the first and second part of the Book. 
In the first six chapters, the author makes all the visions, 
portents and warnings appear to a heathen monarch who is 
compelled to turn to the Prophet of Jhvh for a correct inter- 
pretation. The narrative is all in the third person. Jn the 
last six chapters, on the other hand, the visions are seen by 
the Prophet of Jhvh himself who is made to relate them in 
the first person. The chief point of C. vii is, of course, the 
rise and overthrow of the "Little Horn" Antiochus Epiphanes, 
who is represented as the last king of the fourth empire and 
the bitter enemy of the saints. The author has evidently 
borrowed extensively from the imagery in Ezekiel, Zechariah 
and Isaiah, especially in the case of the figurative animals and 
in his description of the. Divine Court of Justice. 

There is absolutely no foundation for the theory of Lagan I e 
that this chapter Mas composed as late as 69 A. D. l . 

The seventh chapter should be divided into four paragraphs, 
as follows: — The heading, 1 ; the vision of the four beasts, 

1 CCA. 1891 ]>].. 497-520. 


2-8; the appearance of the Ancient of Days, 9-14; the ex- 
planation, 15-27; the conclusion, 28. 

1. a) In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon. 
The theory has been advanced that this date and that of 
C. viii. may refer to the reign of Belshazzar as co-regent, but 
all the allusions to this king in Daniel show that the author 
considered him to have reigned independently as the son of 
Nebuchadnezzar (see above, pp. 40 fif.). 

These visions of the second part of Daniel were not intended 
to continue the narratives, so the author drops the chronological 
order in his dates. 

1. b) Daniel had a dream. As in C. x., the author begins 
in the third person after the style of the narrative sections, 
but immediately makes Daniel speak in the first person (v. 2). 
Cc. vii. ff. are supposed to be the personal diary which Daniel 
wrote, recording his visions at this period. The statement 
that Daniel wrote the dreams and vision is made only here, 
but is undoubtedly understood of all the other visions. 

1. c) Visions of his head. See on ii. 28, p. 68. 

2. a) The four winds of the heaven. All the winds blow 
together and create an indescribable turmoil which lashes up 
the sea and penetrates to the unknown depths, from which 
emerge four monsters, corresponding in number to the winds. 
Rev. xiii. 1 is evidently an imitation of this passage. The 
four winds, of course, represent the four quarters of the heaven ; 
cf. viii. 8; Zech. vi. 5, etc. 

2. b) The great sea is ordinarily an expression for the 
Mediterranean, but is undoubtedly used here typically for the 
world (see v. 17). We find a similar metaphor in Is. xvii. 12, 
where the armies of Sennacherib are referred to as making a 
noise like the rushing of the sea. 

3. Diverse one from another. Because they are symbols 
of totally distinct empires. The Prophet sees the beasts ap- 
pear above the surface of the troubled sea. They do not of 
course come on the land, because the sea in the vision is the 

Prince , Daniel. 9 



type of the whole world. The author may have got the idea 
of beasts as symbols for empires from the similar usage in 
Ezek. i. ; Zech. i.; also in Is. xxvii. 1 ; Ez. xxix. 3 of the 
crocodile, and in Is. li. 9 of the hippopotamus 2 , as types of 
the power of Egypt. 

4. a) The first was like a lion and had eagles' wings. 
Cf. Ezek. i. 10 if. This is a very appropriate symbol for the 
Babylonian power of Nebuchadnezzar. The winged man-faced 
lion is now familiar to us as the type of strength most affect- 
ed by the Assyrian kings 3 . It is probable , however , that 
the author of Daniel knew nothing of this, but constructed 
his composite symbol on the analogy of Jer. iv. 7; xlix. 19; 
1. 17, where Nebuchadnezzar is compared to a lion, and Jer. 
xlix. 22; Hab. i. 8, where the army of the great king is likened 
to an eagle, evidently because of his extraordinarily swift 
marches. The Babylonian being the first and least evil power 
is represented by the best of the beasts of prey, just as it is 
symbolized by the noblest metal in the parallel vision in C. ii. 

4. b) I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, etc. 
The Prophet looked until he saw the wings, the emblems of 
the brutal swiftness which enabled it to dart down on its prey, 
taken from the Babylonian lion, and "it was lifted up from the 
ground and made to stand upon the feet as a man", e. g. made 
to stand erect like a man; "and a man's heart was given to 
it", i. e. it received a higher, gentler and more human intelligence 
in the person of its last great king Nebuchadnezzar. This 
obscure symbolism seems to cover a reference to the punish- 
ment of Nebuchadnezzar recorded in C. iv 4 . Some expositors 5 
ignore this comparatively favourable reference to the Babylo- 
nian power, overlooking the fact that the author clearly wishes 

2 Wrongly translated "Dragon" in the A. V. The same word is used 
in Heb. in all the passages above cited, but the translation "hippo- 
potamus" is probable in Is. li. 9. 3 For illustration, see Layard's 
Nineveh, i. p. 70. See above pp. 6; 70 ft'. for the four empires. * So, 
for example, Giesebrecht, GGA. 1895 p. 598. n Thus v. Lengerke, 
Kamphausen and others. 


to emphasize the contrast between the earlier heathen empires 
and the abominable developement seen in the fourth beast, 
from which sprang the terrible "Little Horn" of his own time. 
Nebuchadnezzar's rule is the best of all and is therefore re- 
presented by the most attractive symbol 6 . 

5. Another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised 
up itself 7 on one side, etc. This is the second empire, that 
of the Medes, which is represented by a bear in a crouching 
attitude, in order to show that although this people was fierce 
and mighty, their power never equalled that of the Babylonians. 
Havernick thought that this indicated the bear's position of 
attack, while v. Lengerke understood it to mean that the bear 
was sitting down in idle sloth. Neither supposition is satis- 
factory, because they both ignore the element of comparison 
between the beasts. The Median bear does not stand erect 
like the Babylonian lion. It had no human intelligence, but 
was simply a beast of prey "with three ribs in the mouth of 
it, between the teeth of it". This last expression is very obscure 
and it seems impossible to interpret it with certainty. It prob- 
ably refers, however, to the conquests by the Medes of other 
nations. Their capture and devastation of Nineveh in 606 B. C. 8 
would naturally have given them a reputation as a great con- 
quering people, even after the lapse of centuries had obscured 
the exact nature of their victories. The expression "three" is 
probably only a round number 9 used to show that they had 
destroyed several great enemies. There can be no doubt that 
the author regarded the Medes as a destroying people, because 
he adds here the words "and they said thus unto it, Arise, 
devour much flesh" 10 . "They" must refer to some angelic voices 

6 See on ii. 37 ff. 7 See below, philological note. 8 See above 
p. 52. 9 So v. Lengerke. Some critics refer this to three special 
countries or cities, but this is very doubtful. Not less so are the 
conjectures of Behrmann, p. 44, who unnecessarily finds glosses in the 
text; cf. Kamphausen, pp. 30—31. 10 Cf. in this connection the 

passages prophesying the overthrow of Babylon by the Medes: Is. 
xiii. 17; 11; 28. 



which Daniel heard sounding over the waters, commanding the 
bear to fulfill its functions. 

This whole passage referring to the Medes is clearly based 
on the author's idea that they conquered and reigned in 
Babylon before the Persians which, as shown above p. 53, may 
be the result of a confusion of traditions regarding the fall 
of Nineveh at the hands of the Medes and the capture of 
Babylon by Cyrus. 

6. And behold another like a leopard, etc. The four- 
headed four-winged leopard is the Persian empire, of which 
the author mentions only four kings (xi. 2) who are evidently 
symbolized by the four heads, and whose power extended to 
the four quarters of the heaven represented by the four wings 
(cf. viii. 4). The Babylonian lion also had wings as a symbol of 
his swift and far-reaching conquests, but the Persian leopard 
has a greater number, because his conquests were more exten- 
sive. A similar symbolism regarding the Persian power appears 
in Her. i. 209, where it is stated that Cyrus has a vision, hi 
which he sees Darius Hystaspes with wings on his shoulders. 
One of these pinions overshadowed Asia and the other Europe. 

7. a) A fourth beast dreadful and terrible, etc. This 
fourth beast is, of course, the most important, as it represents 
the Greek empire in Asia which began with Alexander the 
Great and continued under the Seleucides. Western historians 
are accustomed to regard the Asiatic conquests of Alexander 
as having been civilizing influences which to a great extent 
brought enlightenment and Greek culture into the far East. 
While this is undoubtedly true, it must be remembered that 
for this very reason the victories of Alexander were regarded 
from an Oriental point of view as a tremendous calamity, because, 
unlike the other great conquerors, he was not willing to leave 
the subjugated peoples in their former barbarism, but effected 
great changes both in customs and government throughout the 
cntiie East. His rule, therefore, is appropriately said to be 
diverse from all kingdoms; V. 24. Besides this, neither he nor 


his successors shrank from the most terrible atrocities whenever 
it was necessary to quell a rebellion. This may be seen from 
the fearful Tyrian massacres by the troops of Alexander 
himself, and in later times from the terrible persecutions of 
the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes. The comparison, there- 
fore, of the entire Greek power to a devouring beast with great 
iron teeth n which tore and killed and "stamped the residue 
under its feet" is most appropriate. 

7. b) And it had ten horns. Horns are symbols of haughty 
power, cf. W lxxv. 5; Am. vi. 13. As is expressly stated 
in v. 24, the ten horns are ten kings and not ten empires or 
kingdoms, as some expositors have supposed 12 . There is a 
great variety of opinions regarding the interpretation of the 
ten horns 13 . There can be little doubt, however, that if, as 
is generally admitted by recent writers, they are symbols of 
ten Greco-Syrian kings, excluding Antiochus Epiphanes who 
is the eleventh Little Horn, the list must begin with Alexander. 
Although it is stated in v. 8, that the Little Horn came up 
among the other horns, there can be no doubt that the author 
intended to convey the idea that the ten horns were predecessors 
of the Little Horn, because in v. 24 he makes the Little Horn 
follow the other ten. The question to be settled then is: 
Who are these ten predecessors of Antiochus Epiphanes? An 
examination of the list of Seleucidan kings will show that they 
can only be 14 : 1. Alexander the Great, 356-323 B. C.j 
2. Seleucus I. Nicator, 312-280; 3. Antiochus I. Soter, 280-261 ; 
4. Antiochus H. Theos, 261-246; 5. Seleucus H. Callinicus, 
246-226; 6. Seleucus III. Soter, 226-223; 7. Antiochus IH. 
Magnus, 223-187; 8. Seleucus IV. Philopator, 187-175; 

11 V. 19 adds "claws of brass" which Ewald needlessly proposed to 
insert here. See Bevan, p. 122. 12 So Aben Ezra, for example, who 
thought that they symbolized ten Mohammedan kingdoms. 13 Bevan, 
p. 115; Behrmann, p. 46. u So Hitzig and Cornill. Behrmann, p. 46, 
considers that the ten horns do not designate especially any Syrian 
kings, but are merely a general allusion to all the divided Greek princes 
as a race. 


9. Heliodorus, the treacherous minister of Seleucus IV. who 
tried to usurp the throne in 175, after murdering his master, 
but was soon dispossessed by Antiochus Epiphanes, the brother 
of Seleucus Philopator; 10. Demetrius Soter, who was really 
the rightful hem to the throne, as he was the eldest son of 
Seleucus Philopator. For this reason the author of Daniel 
makes him a predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes. Demetrius 
eventually reigned 162-150, after the death of the feeble 
Antiochus V. Eupator, 164-162, the son of Antiochus Epi- 

8. a) There came in among them another little horn. As 
mentioned above, this king comes after the ten. In viii. 8, 
on the other hand, the Little Horn rises out of one of the 
larger horns. Antiochus Epiphanes is a Little Horn, because, 
as he Avas not the rightful successor to the throne, he was 
not recognized as king at first, but seized that position by 
treachery to his nephew Demetrius. 

The conservative critics who deny that the Little Horn here 
is Antiochus Epiphanes, but admit that he is the Little Horn 
of viii. 9 have simply introduced a useless contradiction into 
the Book. There can be no doubt that vii. 8 and viii. 9 
refer to one and the same person. 

8. b) Before whom were three of the first horns plucked 
up by the roots, e. g. three kings (v. 24). These must be : 
1. Seleucus Philopator who was probably murdered by Hel- 
iodorus 15 ; 2. the usurping Heliodorus himself; 3. Demetrius, 
afterwards Demetrius Soter, all of whom had to give way 
before Antiochus Epiphanes 16 . Von Gutschmid 17 , however, 
thinks that the third horn may have been a brother of Deme- 
trius who, according to a fragment of John of Antioch, was 
slam by order of Antiochus. This is not probable, because 
this brother would not suit the situation so well among the 

15 App. Syr. 45. 16 So Hitzig and Cornill. For other views, see 
I'm van, p. 117. " Kleine Schriften, ii. pp. 175—179, quoted also 

Bevan, p. 118. 


ten horns of v. 7, as ho was not the rightful heir like Deme- 
trius and could, therefore, hardly be ranked among reigning 
kings. Demetrius was of course king de jure immediately 
after the death of his father Seleucus Philopator, and so might 
serve as one of the horns. Heliodorus, on the other hand, 
although not actually a king, had been head of the state for 
a short time until deposed by Antiochus Epiphanes and could 
therefore with propriety be classed as a horn. 

There is undoubtedly a covert hint here that Antiochus 
had something to do with the death of his brother Seleucus. 
This theory has never been historically proved, but, considering 
the character of Antiochus, it is by no means an improbable 
supposition that he was in league with Heliodorus who, 
pretending to aid Antiochus, was really trying to usurp the 
throne for himself. At any rate, the Jewish author would not 
shrink from accusing Antiochus of such a crime against his 
brother, even if it were not definitely proved. 

8. c) Eyes like the eyes of man, e. g. two human eyes, 
the symbols of intelligence 18 , of which Antiochus Epiphanes 
had an unusual share. This is admitted even by the author 
of Daniel ; see viii. 23 "a king understanding dark sentences", 
e. g. deep and intricate intrigues. 

8. d) A mouth speaking great things. Cf. vv. 11; 25; 
'*¥ xii. 3 and Rev. xiii. 5, the latter being plainly an imitation 
of this passage in Daniel. This undoubtedly refers to the 
blasphemies against Jhvh uttered and practised by Antiochus 
Epiphanes; cf. xi. 36. 

9. a) I beheld till the thrones were cast down. This 
should be "till the thrones were placed" 19 . The reference 
seems to be to the thrones for the angelic judges of these 
empires which are to be summoned to trial before the divine 
court. A special throne of flame is appropriately reserved 
for the Greatest Judge. 

18 Cf. Rev. ix. 7. 19 See below, philological note. 


9. b) And the Ancient of Days did sit. Cf. f ix. 4. 
Jhvh is here represented as an aged man, both on account 
of His character as the Supreme Judge and also in contrast 
to the "new gods" of the heathen whose worship Antiochus 
Epiphanes was trying to introduce among the Israelites; cf. 
Ju. v. 8; Jer. xxiii. 23. 

9. c) "White as snow pure wool. Snow and 

wool appear as symbols of purity also in Is. i. 18; V li. 7. 

9. d) And his throne was like the fiery flame. See *F 
xviii. 9. 

9. e) And his (scl. its) wheels as burning fire. A wheeled 
throne, a sort of Divine Chariot, was probably suggested by 
Ezek. x. 2; cf. also i. 15; 16. 

10. a) A fiery stream. For the old Hebrew idea of fire 
being intimately connected with the person of the Supreme 
Being, cf. W 1. 3; xcvii. 3; Is. lxvi. 15; 16. This conception 
is probably a relic of an earlier sun and fire worship. 

10. b) Thousand thousand ministered unto Him. Count- 
less hosts of angels surrounded and served the Most High; 
see above, p. 86. 

10. c) And the judgment was set and the books opened. 
The Judges took their seats and the books of record were 
opened, in which the sins of the Greek kings and especially 
those of Antiochus Epiphanes had all been duly entered. 
Bevan cites an interesting passage from the pre-Mohammedau 
poet Zuhair (p. 123, n. 1.), showing that this idea of divine 
books of record was known also to the early Arabs: "Hide 
not from God that which ye devise .... it is reserved, laid 
up in writing and kept in store against the day of reckoning". 

11. Because of the voice of the great words which the 
horn spake, etc. The beast representing the Greek empire 
is slain and even its remains are utterly destroyed on account 
of the blasphemies of Antiochus Epiphanes (v. 8). 

12. a) They had their dominion taken away. Better 
"their dominion had been taken away", e. g. the Babylonian, 


Median and Persian empires had ceased to exist politically, 
but the people of these countries were not destroyed at once 
(v. 12), but were permitted to exist for a time, apparently in 
order that they might serve the Son of Man (v. 14), e. g. the 
kingdom of the Israelitish Saints. Herein is the chief difference 
between vii. and ii., for in ii. 34-35; 44, all the empires are 
destroyed 20 . In vii., the fourth kingdom only is doomed to 

Behrmann's idea (p. 47) that the expression "the rest of the 
beasts" does not refer to the three first beasts in w. 4; 5; 6, 
but is an indefinite symbolism for the various other kings of 
Greek descent, introduces a needless confusion into the inter- 
pretation. The author referred first to the overthrow of the 
fourth beast, because it was the most important from his point 
of view and then tells the fate of the three preceding peoples 
whose sins had not been as great and shocking as those of 
the Greek race. 

12. b) For a season and a time. The period of the exist- 
ence of these nations is purposely made indefinite, because 
the author does not pretend to know more than that they 
shall serve and be humbled before the kingdom of the saints. 
13—14. One like the Son of Man. This expression simply 
means "one like a human being"; cf. viii. 17, where it is applied 
to Daniel himself. In iii. 25 the parrallel expression "Son of 
God" means a heavenly being 21 . "Son of Man" seems to be 
used here as a symbol for the last kingdom of the Israelitish 
Saints which shall rule over "all peoples, nations and races" 
after the overthrow of the governments typified by the four 
beasts. The author evidently intended to draw a contrast 
between the earlier cruel, bestial kingdoms which arose "out of 
the sea", v. 3, e. g. from this world, and the final human kingdom 
of the saints which had its origin in the clouds of heaven 
(e. g. by divine appointment), and which was established to 

20 See above, pp. 69; 71. 21 Cf. p. 81. 


have dominion over the whole world with the sanction of the 
Ancient of Days, the only true God Who had existed from 
all time. It cannot be shown from the context of this chapter 
that the author meant by the Son of Man a special personal 
Messiah-king, because, while the Son of Man is spoken of as 
a personal ruler in v. 14, which would seem to support such 
a theory, His personality and dominion are explained in vv. 18; 
22; 27 as being identical with that of "the Saints of the Most 
High who shall take the kingdom". In other words, the writer 
must have intended to imply the idea of a personal type, a 
personification of the Israelitish chosen ones who were to 
rule over the Gentiles. In no part of the Book 22 is a per- 
sonal Saviour-king prophesied, but always the iiltimate dom- 
ination of the ideal, eternal kingdom of the Saints. 

Dr. Briggs, however, in his Messianic Prophecy, p. 420, con- 
siders that because the Son of Man is brought chiefly into 
contrast with the Little Horn, if the Little Horn be an indi- 
vidual as is generally admitted, the Son of Man must also be 
an individual and therefore the Messiah himself 23 . This con- 
clusion is unsatisfactory, because it is nowhere stated in C. vii. 
that the Little Horn fought with the Son of Man personally, 
but with the Saints (v. 21) who appear throughout the entire 
chapter as synonymous with the Son of Man. 

The accepted Christian explanation that this passage is a. 
prophecy referring to the coming of Jesus as a personal Messiah 
is not disturbed by such a view. We know now that the whole 
idea regarding the Messianic functions of Israel was a fore- 
shadowing of the life and work of Our Saviour, and that this 
thought culminates in Him and His Teachings. It cannot be 
asserted, however, that the prophets who originated this con- 

22 Cf. ii. 44; xii. 3. So most recent expositors. The idea that "the 
Son of Man" does not refer to a personal Messiah was well known to 
many Jewish commentators, among them Abeu Ezra and Ephraem 
Syrus. Cf. Stanton, The Jewish and Christian Messiah, 1886 (quoted 
also Bevan, p. 119). 23 So also Behrmann, p. 48. 


ception had any such outcome in mind. They undoubtedly 
thought of a purely temporal fulfillment of their idea, e. g. 
that some day, after her period of chastisement and tribulation 
was over, Israel as a people should rise purified and perfect 
before Jhvh to take the lead in mundane affairs and rule over 
the other less favoured nations, to whom the Divine Light 
had not been vouchsafed. There can be little doubt that the 
author of Daniel had this consolatory thought in mind when he 
wrote the prophecies in C. vii. He seems to take no account 
of a personal Messiah such as we find in the Deutero-Isaiah. 
The more liberal minded of the later Hebrew writers, however, 
approached still nearer the sublime truth. Thus, the author of 
Jonah especially saw that Israel had no right to regard Jhvh 
as her own personal property, but that He was equally a God 
for all who would receive Him. It remained for Our Lord to 
show the Jewish people that they had only been stewards of 
Jhvh's mysteries and not, as they had fondly hoped, the nation 
which was to rule over all the world as His earthly Viceroys. 
They were simply chosen as the vessel to preserve the truth 
for the benefit of the Avorld at large, until the time was ripe 
for its general revelation. In reading every Messianic prophecy, 
therefore, the student should always bear in mind the distinct- 
ion between the limited view of the Prophet and the ultimate 
glorious fullfillment of the predictions in the Person of Jesus. 

16. Unto one of them that stood by, e. g. to one of the 
angels who surrounded the Prophet during his vision. 

17. Pour Kings means here "four kingdoms"; cf. viii. 20. 

18. The Saints of the Most High. So LXX. and ©. 
Literally "the most high saints". 

19. Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast. 
The fourth beast, which has a direct bearing on the author's 
own time is, of course the most important and therefore has 
the longest description devoted to it. 

20. Whose look was more stout than his fellows. 
Literally "whose appearance was greater than that of its 


fellows". Although the horn was "little" at first, it had be- 
come greater as Antiochus increased in power and was cer- 
tainly of more importance for the Jewish readers of Daniel 
than any of the others. Hitzig, p. 119, sees here a covert 
allusion to the epithet of Antiochus IV: Epiphanes "renowned". 

21. Made war with the Saints. This verse and v. 25 are 
a plain allusion to the Jewish persecution -under Antiochus; 
see on vv. 13-14. 

22. Judgment was given, e. g. justice was finally given 
to the persecuted Israelites. Ewald changes the text and 
translates "and judgment sat and the power was given". See 
Kamphausen, p. 32 for a discussion of this emendation. 

25. a) To change times and laws. He tried to alter by 
force the Jewish religious customs. 

25. b) A time and times and the dividing of time. Literally 
"a time and times and half a time", e. g. probably for three 
years and a half, beginning with the abolition of the daily 
sacrifice; see also xii. 7. The persecution of the Jews under 
Antiochus Epiphanes is thought to have lasted from Dec. 
168 until 165, probably a little over three years 24 . 

27. This is the culmination of the chapter, e. g. the triumph 
of "the Saints" and their ideal Messianic kingdom, of which 
Jhvh shall be the Ruler and to which all nations shall be 
tributary. The whole world shall be humiliated before Israel, 
the Viceroy of the Most High. 

28. But I kept the matter in my heart. This sentence 
is simply a device to explain to the reader why the prophecy 
was not made public directly after Daniel saw it, but was 
reserved until the time of the author of the Book. A similar 
device occurs in Luke, ii. 19 "But Maiy kept all these things 
and pondered them in her heart". 

24 So Scliiirer, i. 155 tf. According to 1 Mace. iv. 52 the re-con- 
secration of the Temple took place exactly three years after its pro- 
fanation during the Antiochan persecution. 



In C. viii. the language becomes once more Hebrew 1 . 

In this section, as in C. vii., we find symbolical animals 
used to denote empires, only here the author ignores utterly 
the first power of Babylonia and, combining Media and Persia 
in one emblem, proceeds at once to the Medo-Persian and 
Greek dominions. The eighth chapter must be regarded as a 
complement to C. vii., where the three first empires are 
mentioned in detail, in order to form a contrast to the terrible 
fourth power of the Greek invaders. In viii., however, the 
author leads up at once to the Greeks and treats of them 
exclusively, merely alluding in a preliminary way to the over- 
throw of the Persian Ram by the attacks of Alexander. 
Antiochus Epiphanes appears here, as in C. vii., as a Little 
Horn, the blasphemous acts of which are set forth in clear 
and unmistakable language. 

The author's chief aim in C. viii. is undoubtedly to explain 
to his people that the power of Antiochus to vex the saints 
of Israel was really given him from above and that Jhvh was 
not ignorant of the wicked king's act in stopping the daily 
sacrifice and desecrating the Holy of Holies. The underlying- 
idea, which, it is true, is nowhere definitely expressed, but is 
none the less apparent to one who reads understanding^, 
seems to be that these indignities and insults to Israel were 
intended to serve as a chastisement for her and to lead 
eventually to a new and more intense religious life. Antiochus, 
therefore, was merely an instrument, a wicked king permitted 
by Jhvh to have his way for a time. This seems to be the 
reason why a definite limit is fixed in this chapter for the 
duration of the heathen king's power over the Temple worship, 
e. g. 1150 days, after which period the regular daily sacrifice 
was to be restored and Temple cleansed. 

1 See above pp. 11—13. 


The difficulties of interpreting this strange prophecy will 
be discussed below. 

C. viii. should be divided into seven paragraphs : — The heading, 
1-2 ; the Ram and the Goat, 3-8; the Little Horn, 9-12 ; the pro- 
phecy of the duration of the vision, 13-14; the appearance 
of the Angela 15-18; the explanation, 19-26; the conclusion, 27. 

1. a) In the third year of king Belshazzar. See above 
p. 129 on vii. 1. 

1. b) After that which appeared unto me at the first. 
This of course refers to the vision described in C. vii. 

2. a) Shushan in the palace which is in the province of 
Elam. Literally: "Shushan of the castle", e. g. Shushan of the 
royal palace, the capital city; cf. Esther i. 5; ii. 5, etc., and 
Neh. i. 1 2 . Susa (the modern Shuster) or Shushan on the west 
bank of the Eulaeus 3 (Ulai) was originally the capital of the 
Elamitic kingdom 4 . It was afterwards the chief city of the 
Achsemenian Persian kings before their conquest of Babylon 
and on this account seems to have been regarded by the 
later Jewish writers as the central Persian capital. The 
province of Elam had probably the limits of the original king- 
dom of that name which comprised the mountainous districts 
to the North and East of Susa. In Babylonian, the name was 
probably understood to mean "Highlands". The term came to 
be used later, however, as a synonym of Persia; thus, the 
Elymais of Josephus and others and the Elamites of Acts 
ii. 9. It is very likely that this whole passage in Daniel is 
modeled on Esther and Nehemiah. 

2. b) By the river of Ulai, e. g. the Eulaeus ; Assyr. TJla. 
This is in all probability the modern Karun, as Delitzsch 5 
and Spiegel G have suggested, but Kiepert 7 following Herodotus 
identifies it with the Karcha (Choaspes). Spiegel's theory re- 

2 See Billerbeck, Susa, 1893. 3 So Pliny and Arrian, but Her. 

i. 188 states that it was on the Choaspes. 4 See Delitzsch, Parodies, 
p. 326. 5 Op. cit. pp. 177 ff. " ' • Eran. Alterthumskunde ii. p. 626. 
7 Nouvcllc Carte generale des Provinces do l'Empire Ottoman. 


conciling the confusing statements of the ancients regarding 
the site of Susa is perhaps the most satisfactory. He suggested 
that the ancient city really lay on a network of canals connect- 
ing both the Karun and the Karelia and that consequently 
it could be said to be on either river. 

3. A ram which had two horns, etc. This is fully ex- 
plained in v. 20 as representing the kings of Media and Persia. 
The Hebrew word "ram" is used in several passages in the 
sense of "leader, chief"; thus, of the princes of the Moabites, 
Ex. xv. 15; also 2 Kings xxiv. 15; Is. xiv. 9; Zech. x. 3. Further- 
more, in Ezek. xxxix. 18, rams, lambs, goats and bullocks are 
co-ordinated with^ princes, so that the word not infrequently 
appears as a symbol of power. The author recognizes the 
unity of the Medes and Persians as a nation and so uses here 
only one symbol. In C. vii., however, he distinguishes, between 
them, because he was proceeding from a different point of 
view, showing the historical succession of the powers. In 
C. viii., on the other hand, there is no necessity for his going 
back to the time when Media was a separate empire before 
the rise of the Persians, so he begins with the Medo-Persian 
kingdom after the political incorporation of the Medes as one 
nation with the Persians. 

For the sake of historical accuracy, however, he recognizes 
the fact that Media had once had a distinct existence and in- 
dicates this by the two horns of unequal length, of which the 
first is the Median dynasty and the higher one, which came 
up last, is of course the Persian dominion. This shows suf- 
ficiently for his purpose the political difference between the two 8 . 

4. a) I saw the ram pushing westward and northward 
and southward. The extent of the Persian empire is de- 
scribed by Her. iii. 89-96. The Ram does not push towards 
the East, because the writer probably regarded this quarter 

8 Theodotion wrongly considers that the two horns represent the 
double line of Achsemenians ; viz., the shorter one that of Cyrus and 
the longer one, that of Darius Hystaspes. 


as being too unimportant and distant for him to mention. His 
ideas, if he had any, about the eastern limits of the Persian 
empire must have been very vague. He accordingly mentions 
only that part of the Persian dominion which he knew from 
his own traditions. The translators of the LXX. did not under- 
stand this and therefore wrongly inserted the word "eastward". 

4. b) Became great. Better: "did great things" 9 . 

5. a) An he-goat came from the west. This is explained 
v. 21 as "the king of Grecia", e. g. Alexander the Great. It 
seems more accurate to consider the Goat as the symbol of 
the Greek empire, because the Great Horn is the special symbol 
of Alexander. 

5. b) On the face of the whole earth. Alexander con- 
quered all the known world. Hitzig, p. 129, compares 1 Mace, 
i. 3, where it is stated that Alexander went through to the 
ends of the earth. 

5. c) And touched not the ground, e. g. went so fast that 
hes eemed to fly. This is plainly an allusion to the lightning- 
like rapidity of the Greek marches. The same idea is seen 
in Is. xli. 3 : "by the way that he had not gone with his feet", 
a reference to the similar rapid conquests of Cyrus 10 . 

5. a) A notable horn between his eyes. Better: "a con- 
spicuous horn"; viz., the Great Horn of w. 8 and 21. This is 
the emblem of Alexander himself. The great conqueror was 
commonly called by the Arabs "he of the two horns", which 
is probably an accidental coincidence 11 . 

In w. 6—7 we have a vivid description of the Persian con- 
quests of Alexander. 

7. And stamped upon him. As in vii. 7, the Greek power 
is represented as stamping out utterly all that preceded it. 

So Ewald, Behrmann and Bevan. 10 Not: "a way which he 

was not accustomed to tread with his feet", Delitzsch, Jes. * p. 422. 
11 Cf. Kalila tea Dimna, Beyrouth ed. p. 12; quoting from Qoran, 18, 
82 ff. 


8. The great horn was broken, etc. Alexander died and 
his kingdom was divided among his generals. It does not seem 
probable that we have here an actual historical description of 
the division, although some expositors consider that the four 
horns typify Ptolemy of Egypt on the South, Seleucus of Asia 
on the East, Cassander of Macedon on the West and Lysim- 
achus of Thrace on the North 12 . It is highly unlikely that the 
author of Daniel had any such accurate knowledge of the 
situation. He may merely have meant to indicate vaguely that 
the power of Alexander had been divided in every quarter. 
This seems to be the significance of the expression "towards 
the four winds of heaven". If, however, it be supposed that 
the author had any exact idea of the kingdoms, we must be- 
lieve from C. xi. that he considered Syria the northernmost. 
In this case, his four empires would be Syria on the North, 
Egypt on the South, Parthia on the East and Macedon on 
the West. 

9. a) And out of one of them came forth a little horn. 
Better "another Little Horn"; see below philological note. This 
is undoubtedly the same person as the Little Horn in vii. 8 ; 
Antiochus Epiphanes. In C. vii, however, he is represented with 
more attention to historical accuracy as coming up after the 
ten horns of his own dynasty, whereas here, the author merely 
indicates generally that he was a product of the Great Horn 
and the Goat, e. g. a member of the Greek nation. There is 
no contradiction between this passage and vii. 8. 

9. b) Towards the South and towards the East and 
towards the pleasant land. Better "the Glory". He was 
able to turn his power towards Egypt (xi. 5; 25; 1 Maec. i. 18), 
towards Persia (1 Mace. iii. 31) and, most important of all, 
towards Jerusalem the seat of the Holy Temple. The ortho- 
dox critics, who admit very generally the identity of the Little 
Horn of C. \ T iii. with Antiochus, are unable to explain how 

12 So Porphyry in Jerome vii. 7. 

Prince, Daniel. 10 


a prophet living in Susa can refer to Persia as the East. This 
expression of course betrays the Syrian authorship of the Book. 

The use of the term "Glory" for the Holy City is quite in 
accord with the general tone of C vii., where the Israelitish 
people are called "the Saints of the Most High". In Jer. iii. 19, 
Zech. vii. 14 and various other passages, the Holy Land is 
called "the Glorious Country". The attempts of Antiochus 
against Jerusalem are described 1 Mace. i. 20 if. 

10. a) Even to the host of heaven. Antiochus by his 
desecration of the Sanctuary ventured to attack even the power 
of Jhvh Himself. "The host of heaven", e. g. the stars, here 
seems to refer to the heavenly people of Israel who are con- 
ceived of in these idealistic chapters as a divinely appointed 
angel-nation. This interpretation seems clear from the sub- 
sequent passages w. 11; 24. The idea is the same as that in 
Isaiah xiv. 13, where the haughty king of Babylon is re- 
presented as ascending into heaven and "exalting his throne 
above the stars of God", thinking that he could subdue the 
people of Jhvh and suppress their worship of Him. Indeed, 
this passage in Daniel may have been suggested by Is. xiv. 

10. b) And it cast down some of the host of the stars 
to the ground and stamped on them. Many of the Jews 
were tortured by the orders of Antiochus to force them to 
consent to his idolatrous abominations ; cf . 1 Mace. i. 44 ff. 
"The stars" seems to be used here simply in explanation of 
the word "host" 13 . 

11. a) For the discussion of the text and an emended trans- 
lation of vv. 11—12, see below, philological note. 

Even unto the Prince of the host. This can only refer to 
the great Prince of the people of Israel, Jhvh Himself, Who 
is referred to in v. 25 as "the Prince of princes" and Is. vi. 5 
as "the King, Jhvh of Hosts". That this passage is a reference 

13 So correctly Hitzig, p. 131. See on this passage viii. 9—14 and 
Moore, Journal of Biblical Lit. xv. pp. 193—7, whose interesting inter- 
pretation I am unable to accept. 


to the deposition and murder by Antiochus Epiphanes of 
Onias III. the High Priest, according to Be van, p. 132, ' is 
very uncertain, because the High Priest would hardly be called 
"the Prince of princes" in the explanatory verse 25. The 
allusion in xi. 22 to "the Prince of the Covenant", on the 
other hand, may really be a reference to Onias. 

11. b) And by him the daily sacrifice was taken away 
and the place of the Sanctuary was cast down. Better 
"from Hun", e. g. from Jhvh u . For the daily offering, cf. 
Dt. xxviii. 3ff., and for the desecration of the Temple by 
Antiochus, see 1 Mace. i. 44 ff. 

12. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice 
by reason of transgression. Translate "and its host (the 
Horn's) was laid as a punishment upon the daily sacrifice"; 
viz., a punishment for Israel's former sins against Jhvh. The 
agents of Antiochus certainly "cast down the truth to the 
ground" when they polluted the Holy of Holies. This sacrilege 
was permitted by Jhvh as a chastisement and humiliation for 
His people. The Horn, therefore, "practised and prospered" 
with divine permission. 

13. a) And I heard one saint speaking, etc. This is the 
same idea as in iv. 14, where the angel announces the exact 
nature of the decree, but the author here makes both question 
and explanatory statement come from the divine beings. Daniel 
is merely the mouth-piece who repeats what he has heard. It 
is quite possible that this dialogue between angels was sug- 
gested by Zech. i. 14 15 . 

13. b) How long shall be the vision? How long is the 
state of affairs prophesied by the vision to last? 

13. c) And the transgression of desolation, etc. For an 
attempted emendation and revised translation of this clifBcult 
and corrupt text, see below, philological note. As there indicated, 
the translation should perhaps be : "For how long is the vision 

u See below, philological note. 1B So also Bevan, p. 134. 



of the daily offering and of the devastating transgression?" i. e. 
when may the oppressed Israelites expect permission to renew 
the interrupted worship of Jhvh and how long is the "devas- 
tating" transgression of the wicked king to last? There is 
probably a double allusion here to their own transgressions 
which, as stated in v. 12, were the cause of this punishment, 
and also to the sinful act of Antiochus Epiphanes in defiling 
the Holy Place, which is described in xi. 31 as an abomination. 
That this word "transgression" in vv. 12-13 refers only to the 
iniquity of Antiochus is by no means certain. Its occurrence 
with a double application in v. 13 would be parallel to the 
similar use of "host" in 11-12. 

14. a) And he said unto me. Better "unto him", following 
LXX., G and P. Daniel takes no part in the dialogue. 

14. b) Unto two thousand and three hundred days. Liter- 
ally "evenings (and) mornings"; viz.; 1150 days. This seems 
to be an allusion to the period spoken of in vii. 25 as "a 
time and times and half a time", which referred to the duration 
of Antiochus' persecution which lasted a little over three 
years 16 . Some expositors, however, following LXX., interpret 
this to mean 2300 full days, e. g. 1150 evenings and 1150 
mornings, but the separation of the words "evening" and 
"morning" in the explanatory v. 26 seems to preclude this 
rendering. As Be van points out 17 , the passage most probably 
refers to the morning and evening sacrifice 18 . There are to 
be 2300 omissions of the daily offering extending over 1150 
full days. 

14. c) Then shall the Sanctuary be cleansed. Literally: 
"be justified". It shall be considered righteous and entered 
once more by the Divine Presence. After this period of pollu- 
tion Jhvh will again accept the Sanctuary as His earthly abode. 
It is highly likely that at the time when this was written the 
persecution had not yet ceased. 

16 So Cornill, Theol. Studien und Skizzen aus Ostpreuesen ii. pp. 22 ft'. 
17 p. 136. ,8 Ex. xxix. 41; Dan. ix. 21. 


15. There stood before me as the appearance of a man. 
Dauiel again sees an angel, whom, however, in this passage 
he does not question, as he did in vii. 16. The divine messenger 
is commanded here by a mysterious voice to explain the vision 
to the Prophet. 

16. a) Between (the banks of) the Ulai, e. g. standing on 
the water; cf. xii. 6. 

16. b) Gabriel. This is the first occurrence of an angel's 
name in the O. T. In x. 13; 21, the name Michael is also 
mentioned. In the older Hebrew literature, however, the names 
of angels were never communicated to man; cf. Gen. xxxii. 29, 
the refusal of the angel to tell his name to Jacob, and Ju. 
xiii. 18, a similar case with Manoah. In the very late writings 
such as Tobit and Enoch, and also in the Talmud, there is 
a well developed system of angelology with an extensive list 
of names 19 . Michael and Gabriel were regarded as the highest 
in rank in the heavenly hierarchy, the former as stated in 
Dan. xii. 1 being the Prince of the angels 20 . Of the other 
names, the most important are Raphael (Tobit iii. 17) and Uriel 
(4 Ezra v. 20) 21 . 

17. a) Daniel is a "son of man" 22 in contradistinction to 
the supernatural character of Gabriel. 

17. b) At the time of the end shall be the vision. Better 
''the vision is for the time of the end". In such a context 
this expression can only mean the end of the power of Anti- 
ochus, after whom the kingdom of the Saints (viii. 26-7) shall 
be established. 

18. a) I fell upon my face, e. g. in awe at the supernatural 
presence; cf. the similar act of Manoah and his wife before 
an angel, Ju. xiii. 20. 

18. b) I was in a deep sleep. More correctly "in a faint" 
as in x. 9. Daniel after falling on his face had swooned at 
the sound of the angel's voice. 

19 Cf. Enoch vi. 7; xx. xl. 9. °-° Weber, System, pp. 162 ff. 21 Cf. 
in this connection Behnnann, p. 56. 22 See above, p. 137. 


19. a) At the last end of the indignation. When the period 
of wrath is over; after the time of Israel's persecution is past; 
cf. xi. 36. 

19. b) For at the time appointed the end shall be. Better 
"for the time of the end (the vision is)", supplying the last 
three words from v. 17. 

20. Here follows the detailed explanation as in vii. 16 ff. 
See on w. 3-4. 

The kings of Media and Persia. "Kings" is used here as 
in vii. 17 in the sense of "empires". 

21. The first king; of course, Alexander the Great. 

22. a) Tour stood for it. See above p. 145 on v. 8. 

22. b) But not in his power. These kingdoms 23 were no 
longer under the authority of Alexander's personal house. There 
is no reason for cancelling these words with Behrmann, p. 57. 

23. a) And in the latter time of their kingdom; towards 
the end of their rule. The belief that the end of the existing 
order of things was near has ever been a characteristic of 
times of extreme religious excitement. 

23. b) A king of fierce countenance and understanding 
dark sentences. For the expression "fierce countenance", cf. 
Deut. xxviii. 50. This king, who "understood difficult matters", 
e. g. had unusual skill in intrigue, was of course Antiochus, 
whose double dealings are alluded to also v. 25; cf. 1 Mace. i. 30. 

24. a) But not by his own power. The power of the 
wicked king exists by divine permission. Antiochus was a 
chastening instrument in the hands of Jhvh.. There is no 
reason to regard this phrase as an interpolation from v. 22 24 . 

24. b) And he shall destroy wonderfully, etc. His reign 
shall be generally characterized by destruction, the special fea- 
tures of which shall be the attempt to destroy the Holy People. 

24. c) And shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. 
"Mighty" here should be rendered "many" and the whole 

23 See above on v. 8, p. 145. 2 * So Kautzch-Marti; cf. Kamp- 

hausen p. 34. 


passage translated "he shall destroy many; namely, the holy 
people". This last allusion looks forward to v. 25 25 . 

25. a) And through his policy also he shall cause craft 
to prosper his hand. Better "by his hand". This is a ref- 
erence to the intrigues mentioned in v. 23. 

25. b) And by peace he shall destroy many. Translate 
"unawares he shall destroy many". This is plainly a refer- 
ence to his sudden treacherous attack on Jerusalem, in which 
many of the Jews perished; 1 Mace. i. 30. 

25. c) The Prince of princes is undoubtedly Jhvh Who is 
called "Lord of lords" W exxxvi. 3; Dt. x. 17, and in Dan. 
ii. 47 "a Lord of kings". See above on vv. 10-11. 

25. d) Without hand, e. g. without human interference; 
cf. on ii. 34, p. 69. 

26. a) Shut thou up the vision; viz., keep the vision se- 
cret, as in xii. 4 ; cf . also vii. 28. This injunction is charact- 
eristic of the apocalyptic style. It is a device to explain why 
the vision was not made known until the author's own time. 

26. b) For many days. The vision is not to be fulfilled 
until after many days. 

27. But none understood it. This, if correct, would seem 
to imply that Daniel told the vision to others, in contradiction 
to v. 26. It should be rendered, however, "and I did not 
understand it". 


The interpretation of this chapter, the chief point of which 
is of course the record of the vision of the seventy weeks, 
cannot be separated from that of the preceding sections. As 
mentioned above, however, C. ix. differs from vii. and viii. in 
that there is here no metaphorical vision of symbolical animals 
intended to serve as types of empires or kingdoms, but simply 

25 See below, philological note for the views of Gratz and Bevan. 


a penitential prayer for Israel uttered by Daniel who is impelled 
thereto by the prophecy in Jer. xxv. 11-12. This petition 
is answered in direct language by the divine messenger 
Gabriel. The angel prophesies to the Seer that there is to 
be a period of seventy weeks, during which Israel shall make 
atonement for her iniquity by suffering both the loss of her 
Anointed One and her Holy City and Sanctuary, in which 
the daily offering to Jhvh shall cease and an abomination be 
set up in its place. The end of all is quite in accord with 
the tone of the Book, for we read here again that the blas- 
phemous king shall eventually be overthrown by the divine 

The chapter should be divided into five paragraphs, as 
follows: — The Prophet's determination to pray for Israel, 
1-3; the confession, 4—14; the petition for a deliverance from 
the punishment, 15-19; the appearance of Gabriel, 20-23; the 
announcement of the seventy weeks, 24-27. 

1. a) Darius the son of Ahasuerus. See above p. 55 on 
Darius the Mede. 

1. b) The realm of the Chaldseans. Cf. iii. 8; v. 30 and 
see pp. 59-60 on i. 4. 

2. a) Understood by books. Translate "by the Scriptures". 
It is useless to attempt to conjecture the exact meaning of 
this expression. It is in all probability in tins passage simply 
a general term especially denoting the Book of Jeremiah, 
where Daniel had seen the allusion to the seventy years of 
desolation for Jerusalem, and which, being of course part of 
the Scriptural Canon in the Maceabsean time, could be thus 
designated without ambiguity. There is no necessity for sup- 
posing that the Scriptures mentioned here refer to some other 
part of the Canon than Jeremiah, f. ex. the Pentateuch, as 
Bevan needlessly conjectures (p. 149). The author meant to 
make the Prophet say : "I Daniel perceived in the Scriptures 
the number of the years whereof the word of Jhvh came to 
Jeremiah, etc.", e. g. he saw in the Scriptures that there actu- 


ally was such a definite time of seventy years appointed and 
announced by divine revelation to Jeremiah, and he accord- 
ingly prayed to Jhvh for Israel. "Understood" here does not 
necessarily mean "sought to understand" (v. Lengerke) nor 
"marked in the Scriptures the number" (Hitzig). 

2. b) The word of Jeremiah the Prophet. This can only 
refer to Jer. xxv. 11-12, the prophecy regarding the duration 
of the Babylonian Captivity. As Daniel is represented as a 
Babylonian Seer, the author no doubt regarded this prediction 
of Jeremiah concerning the captivity of Israel in Babylon as 
a peculiarly appropriate prophecy for his hero's consideration. 

2. c) That he would accomplish seventy years in the 
desolations of Jerusalem. Literally "the number of the years 
whereof the word of Jhvh came to Jeremiah the Prophet to 
fulfill the destruction of Jerusalem, namely seventy years". 

3. a) I set my face unto the Lord God. Daniel turned 
towards the Temple as in vi. 11. 

3. b) To seek by prayer and supplication, etc. Better 
"to seek (to apply myself to) prayer and supplication by means 
of fasting, sackcloth and ashes". He prepared himself in the 
usual way ' for a divine revelation regarding the fate of Israel. 

4-6. And made my confession. Daniel freely confesses the 
sins of Israel and admits the justness of their punishment. 
A number of expositors 2 have called attention to the striking 
resemblance between this prayer and the similar petition in 
Neh. i. 5ff.; ix. 6ff. and Baruch i. 15 ff. While it is possible 
that it was especially these Nehemiah-Baruch prayers which 
suggested this one in Dan. ix., it is equally permissible to 
suppose that the author of Daniel was really not copying from 
any one passage, but was simply making use of commonly 
accepted devotional and penitential formulae 3 , such as for ex. 
"keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him"; cf. 
Ex. xx. 6; "we have sinned and committed imquity", 'F cvi. 6; 

1 See p. 61 on i. 8. 2 So Hitzig, p. 147; Bevan, p. 150. See his 
comparison of passages note 1. 3 So also Bevan. 


"neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the Prophets", 
2 Chr. xxx vi. 15-6, etc. 

There is absolutely no necessity for supposing with v. Gall, 
pp. 123-6, that this entire passage is an interpolation like LXX. 
iii. 25 if. and LXX. iii. 52-90. That the prayer is merely a 
combination of set liturgical formula is quite evident, but its 
presence is none the less necessary for the climax of the 
chapter in vv. 21-27. 

7. All Israel that are near and that are far off, e. g. 
those of the Jews who were in Palestine and those who were 
in foreign countries; cf. Jer. xxiv. 8-9; xl. 11. All Israel, 
wheresoever her children may be, has richly deserved her 

8. To our kings. As may be seen from the context both 
here and in v. 6, this clearly points back to the early Jewish 
history and does not at all imply the existence of a Hebrew 
king contemporary with the writer. It is interesting to notice 
at this point that there is no utterance in this prayer winch 
is not just as appropriate to the Maccabaean period as to the 
supposed time of Daniel. 

Verses 8-10 are really a repetition in a slightly different 
order of the ideas set forth in vv. 5-7. 

11. The curse is poured out upon us and the oath that 
is written in the law of Moses. The "curse" the proclama- 
tion of evil upon Israel and the "oath" is the record of the 
divine intention to cany out the curse. The curse mentioned 
here as being written in the Pentateuch is probably the long 
curse against the nation in case they refuse to accept the law of 
Jhvh which is recorded in Deut. xxviii. 15-45; Lev. xxvi. 14 ff. 

12. a) And he confirmed his words, c. g. brought them to 
pass. It is thought by some commentators that this verse is 
a literal translation of Baruch ii. 1 ff. 4 

12. b) Against our judges. "Judges" here simply means 

4 So f. ex. Ewald, Behrmann, etc. 


"kings" or "rulers" in a general sense; the same who were 
mentioned in w. 6; 8; cf. *F ii. 10; Mi. iv. 14. 

12. c) Under the whole heaven hath not been done as 
hath been done at Jerusalem. Such indignities had never 
been heaped upon the Sanctuary; such frightful abominations 
had never been done in the Holy City even in the days of 
Nebuchadnezzar. The author applies all the worse features of 
the curse to his own time when the Antiochan persecutions 
were actually going on, and when the prophecy of evil seemed 
to culminate; cf. 1 Mace, i.; ii. 

13. a) All this evil, e. g. all the evil prophesied in the 

13. b) Yet made we not our prayer before the Lord. 
Better "Yet have we not softened the countenance of Jhvh", 
i. e. they had not propitiated Him; cf. Job xi. 19; f xlv. 13. 

13. c) And understand thy truth. Better "gain insight into 
thy truth", e. g. discover the true revelation of salvation, as in 
W xix. 9; Wxxxi. 5. Others translate "faithfulness" and inter- 
pret it to mean the realization that God fulfills His threats 5 . 
Others again suggest the translation "to become wise through 
Thy truth" 6 ; viz., through Jhvh's steadfast observance of his 
threatened punishments. 

14. Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil. 
Jhvh has never ceased to remember the punishment which 
He threatened in case of Israel's disobedience. He has kept 
the punishment, which is really His own justification, con- 
stantly in mind. The word "watch" is used in precisely the same 
sense, Jer. i. 12; not "hasten" as in the A. V.; also Pr. viii. 34. 

15. a) Thou hast brought forth thy people out of the 
land of Egypt. This is a common allusion which served both 
to illustrate Jhvb/s power and to encourage the people; cf. 
Ex. xiii. 9; Jer. xxxii. 21. 

15. b) Gotten thee renown as at this day. Literally "Hast 
made for Thyself a name even for this day". Jhvb/s fame in 
5 So Hitzig. 6 So v. Lengerke. 


saving Israel so marvellously had never died out of the pop- 
ular mind and was still alive at the time of the author; cf. 
Jer. xxxii. 20. 

16. a) According to all thy righteousness. He adjures 
Jhvh by His many righteous acts; acts of kindness to Israel, 
to allow His fury to be turned from His people. In v. 14 
"righteous" means "just", but for righteousness in this sense 
of "graciousness", cf . Is. xlii. 2 1 ; Zeph. iii. 5 ; Deut. xxxii. 4 ; 
Ju.v. 11. 

16. b) Thy holy mountain in apposition to Jerusalem, 
cf. Is. ii. 2, the mountain of the Lord's house. 

16. c) Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach 
to all that are about us. The Holy City and the Holy People 
are an object of mockery to all the surrounding heathen who 
taunted the Jews about the powerlessness of Jhvh to save 
His people from the persecutions of Antiochus. 

17. a) The sanctuary that is desolate, e. g. the defiled 
Holy of Holies, in which Antiochus had set up a "desolating 
abomination"; cf. v. 27. 

17. b) For the Lord's sake. Better "for Thine own sake", 
following 7 . 

18. a) Incline thine ear and hear; open thine eyes and 
behold. This seems to be taken verbatim from Is. xxxvii. 17. 

18. b) The city which is called by thy name; viz., the 
city which rightfully belongs to Jhvh. This statement is re- 
peated for greater emphasis in the following verse. The pe- 
titioner seeks to impress upon Jhvh that His own city is be- 
ing destroyed. 

21. a) The man Gabriel. The angel is sent, not to tell 
Daniel the meaning of the prophecy in Jeremiah, the general 
signification of which the Seer already understood (v. 2), but 
to increase his knowledge by explaining the application of the 
prediction more fully and distinctly. Cf. v. 22 "to give thee 

7 See below, philological note, r* 


skill and understanding", i. e. to give thee a more clear under- 

21. b) Being caused to fly swiftly. Flying angels never 
appear in the O. T., although \vc find a flying seraph men- 
tioned Is. vi. 6, and the flying of Jhvh upon a cherub spoken 
of 'f xviii. 11; 2 Sam. xxii. 11. It is quite possible that "to 
fly" here in Daniel means simply "to proceed with great rapid- 
ity" and that the phrase should therefore be translated "hasten- 
ing rapidly". The author may of course have had in mind 
the flying seraphs and cherubs of the passages just quoted 
and applied this idea to angels, but such a view is not satis- 
factory owing to the lack of analogy in the O. T. Behrmann 8 
calls attention to the fact that winged angels appear first in 
Enoch lxi. 

21. c) Touched me. Better "approached me". 

21. d) About the time of the evening oblation, e. g. about 
sunset, cf. Nu. xxviii. 4. This expression is used here merely 
to specify the time when the angel appeared to Daniel. The 
evening sacrifice itself had of course ceased during the Anti- 
ochan persecutions. 

24-27. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy city. 
The chief point of the angel's explanation is that the seventy 
years of Jeremiah's prophecy were not ordinary years, but hi 
reality year-weeks, e. g. that each year of Jeremiah meant seven 
years and that the whole period of probation and trial was 
therefore to last 490 years instead of seventy years as is 
stated in Jer. xxv. 11-12. That these weeks of Dan. are weeks 
of years and not of days has been commonly accepted by 
critics from the very earliest times 9 . This whole passage is 
a most interesting example of the apocalyptic style. The author 
takes a genuine prophecy, undoubtedly intended by its origi- 

8 Dan. p. 62. 9 I except of course the extravagant theories of 

some orthodox expositors like Kliefoth, Keil, etc. who, in their efforts 
to prove the divine character of the prophecy, distort the interpretation 
grotesquely and needlessly (see Bevan, p. 142 and note, on Keil, p. 332). 


nator to refer simply to the duration of the Babylonian cap- 
tivity, and, by means of a purely arbitrary and mystical inter- 
pretation, makes it denote the entire period of Israel's degra- 
dation down to his own time. The writer does not do this 
in his own words, but, true to the apocalyptic method, by 
means of the utterance of an angel whom he makes appear 
to his hero and give an explanation of the prediction concern- 
ing which Daniel had been praying. The prophecy in these 
verses is in reality an extension of the vision of the 2300 
evening-mornings of viii. 14 and of the "time, times and half 
a time" of vii. 25. 

The real point at issue here is not so much the meaning 
of "week" 10 , which can hardly bear any other interpretation 
than "seven years", but is the question as to what period of 
time the author really meant to indicate by the mysterious 
seventy weeks. When does this epoch beghi and, still more 
important, when does it end? Owing to the immense number 
of views on this subject, it is quite impossible to discuss them 
at any length. It may truly be said that the name of these 
theories is legion. The reason for such a great diversity of 
opinion is undoubtedly the desire felt by a number of ex- 
positors to make the seventy weeks extend to a given historical 
point which differs according to the attitude of the respective 
critics or schools of critics. Thus, the terminus ad quern has 
been variously fixed as, 1. the end of the Maccabsean period; 
2. the birth of Christ; 3. Christ's first public appearance; 
4. the Crucifixion; 5. the war under Vespasian; 6. the war 
under Hadrian; 7. the second coming of Christ. As to the 
beginning of the period, the terminus a quo, opinions are natu- 
rally almost equally at variance. We find the following views: 
1. the time of the prophecy Jer. xxv. 11-12; 2. the time of 
Daniel's supposed activity, e. g. the beginning of Cyrus' reign 
in Babylon; 3. the date of the first decree of Artaxerxes 

10 See, however, the numerous views cited Behrmann, p. 65; Bevan 
pp. 142 ff. 


Longimanus, Ezra vii. 1 (458 B. C); 4. the date of the second 
decree of the same king, Neh. ii. Iff. (455 B. C); 5. the birth 
of Christ. 

It seems quite clear from 2 Chron. xxxvi. 19-21 that the 
seventy years of Jeremiah were regarded as beginning with 
the conquest and destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar 
in 586 B. C, and it appears equally likely that the earlier 
Hebrews considered the close of the seventy years to have 
been the return of the exiles to Palestine in the first year' of 
Cyrus (537); cf. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22; Ezra i. Iff. In point 
of fact, however, as will appear from the dates 586-537, the 
exact duration of the exile was only forty nine years, so that 
the seventy years of Jeremiah's prophecy must really be re- 
garded as a round number. This fact should be borne in 
mind in discussing the duration of the seventy year-weeks of 
Daniel, because we have no right to suppose that the Macca- 
baean author would be more accurate in his reckoning than 
was Jeremiah. 

The seventy weeks are divided into three periods of un- 
even length; viz., one of seven weeks; one of sixty two weeks, 
and the last of one week. It seems probable that the author 
of Daniel like the Chronicler began his seventy weeks with 
the destruction of Jerusalem in 586. He gives the duration 
of his first seven weeks "from the going forth of the command- 
ment to restore and build Jerusalem unto Messiah the prince". 
This "commandment" must be the divine word spoken through 
Jeremiah quoted in v. 2, that the desolation of Jerusalem 
should last only seventy years. The author evidently regarded 
the utterance of Jeremiah's prophecy and its fulfillment as 
being practically contemporaneous events and accordingly dates 
from the chief occurrence predicted, i. e. the destruction of the 
Holy City under Zedekiah in 586. The end of his first seven 
weeks then must be the end of the Babylonian captivity in 
537, and his "Messiah the Prince" may therefore be Joshua 
the son of Jozadak mentioned Ezra iii. 2 who was the first 


High Priest l 1 after the exile, and who was with the first party 
that returned. It is certainly significant that the first seven 
weeks, i. e. forty nine years, should coincide exactly with the 
duration of the captivity in Babylon. That our author is more 
accurate in this respect than Jeremiah is probably because the 
prophecy in Daniel is a vaticinium ex eventu concerning a 
period, all the details of which were well known in the very 
latest times. Not until the second period of sixty two weeks 
do we begin to find any historical inaccuracies. 

This second period of the epoch, during which Jerusalem 
is to be peopled and built, and at the end of which the Messiah 
is to be cut off, is much more difficult to determine. The 
key to the problem lies undoubtedly in the last statement 
regarding the overthrow of the Messiah or Anointed One 12 . 
Such a reference coming from a Maccabsean author can only 
allude to the deposition by Autiochus of the High Priest 
Onias LTI. which took place about 174 B. C. and the Syrian 
king's subsequent murder of the same person not later than 
171 (2 Mace. iv. 33-6). The difficulty now arises that between 
537 and 171 there are only 366 years instead of the required 
number 434. It does not seem permissible with some ex- 
positors 13 to reckon the sixty two weeks from the beginning of 
the seventy weeks ; viz., 586 B. C, thus causing the first period 
of seven weeks and the second of sixty two weeks to overlap. 
This was certainly not the author's intention, as the whole 
passage shows very plainly that he meant seventy consecutive 
weeks; besides, nothing is gained by such a device, because 
this would bring the date down to the meaningless year 152 
which would be too late to refer to Onias, unless of course 
the beginning of the whole period be set back, for which there 
seems to be no warrant. By far the most satisfactory theory 
regarding discrepancies of this sort in the later Jewish authors 

11 Cf. Zech. iii. 1. 12 That the term Messiah or Anointed One 

is used of the High Priest is seen from Lev. iv. 3; v. 16. 1S So 

Behrmann, p. 06. 


is that of Cornill * 4 who correctly saw that a Maccabsean author 
could not be expected to be perfectly acquainted with the 
chronology of the Persian period. He therefore adopted the 
only tenable theory regarding the problem; viz., that the author 
of Daniel did not know the chronology between 537 and 312, 
the establishment of the Seleuciclan era, and consequently made 
the period too long 15 . That the Jewish historians, when 
they were in doubt, had a tendency to do this is seen from 
the much quoted example of Demetrius l6 who placed the fall 
of Samaria (722 B. C.) 573 years before the accession of 
Ptolemy IV (222), thus making an error of seventy three years. 
Josephus who places the reign of Cyrus 40-50 years too early 
makes a similar error. 

The last week is divided into two sections (26-27), in the 
first of which the city and Sanctuary shall be destroyed, and 
in the second, the daily offering is to be suspended. All crit- 
ical scholars recognize the identity of this second half week 
with "the tune, times and half a time" of vii. 25 17 . This last 
week must end therefore with the restoration of the Temple 
worship in 164 B. C. 

This whole prophecy unquestionably presents problems which 
can never be thoroughly understood, first, because the author 
must have been ignorant both of history and chronology, and 
secondly, because in his effort to be as mystical as possible, 
he purposely made use of indefinite and vague expressions 
which render the criticism of the passage a thankless and 
unsatisfactory task. 

24. a) To finish the transgression and to make an end 
of sins, etc. Literally "to seal up the sins", which really 
means to finish or complete them. All these infinitives show 
the purpose for which the seventy weeks were ordained. They 
point to the future ; to what is to happen after the period of 

" St. 0. ii. 1-32. 13 So also Meinhold, Bevan, Graf and Noldeke. 
18 Behrrnann, p. 65; Bevan, p. 148, quoting Schurer, Gesch. ii. p. 616. 
17 Cf. also the 1150 clays of viii. 14. 

Prince, Daniel. 11 


probation is completed. These six acts; viz., finishing' the 
transgression, making an end of the sins, making reconcilia- 
tion for iniquity, bringing in everlasting righteousness, sealing 
up the vision and prophecy and anointing the Holy of Holies 
are grouped in three pairs. The sins and iniquity referred to 
are of course the former idolatrous unfaithfulness of Israel 
against Jhvh. 

24. b) To anoint the Most Holy does not allude to the 
anointing of a Messianic King, according to the idea of the 
translators of the A. V., but simply means the reconsecration 
of the Sanctuary after its defilement under Antiochus. For 
the term applied to the sacrificial altar, cf. Ex. xxix. 37. 

25. To restore and to build. Perhaps "to people and to 
build", following Bevan; see below, philological note. The last 
part of this verse is very obscure. It should perhaps be rend- 
ered: "And (in) sixty two weeks it (Jerusalem) shall be peopled 
and built, public places and (private) garden trenches". For 
the last words "even in troublous times" see next verse. 

26. The following translation for this verse is suggested 
in accordance with the philological notes: "And in the end of 
the times 18 (namely, after the sixty tAvo weeks) the Anointed 
One shall be cut off and there shall be no one for him (no 
successor); and as for the Holy City, the people of the prince 
who is to come shall destroy it and its end shall be in 
overwhelming flood, and unto the end shall be war. Desol- 
ations are decreed". 

"The people of the prince" must mean the army of Anti- 
ochus. "People" in this sense appears also in the Song of 
Deborah, Ju. v. 2. 

The prince who is to come is of course Antiochus him- 
self who is the subject of the first sentence in the last verse. 

27. The following conjectural translation for this verse is 
suggested: "And he shall turn aside the covenant for the many 

18 This is the proposed translation of the words rendered in A. V. 
"even in trouhlous times". 


one week, and half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice 
and the fruit offering to cease; and instead thereof, (there shall 
be) a desolating abomination; but furthermore, ruin and judg- 
ment shall be poured out upon the desolator". 

The subject of the first two verbs is Antiochus who sub- 
stituted the "desolating abomination" for the regular sacrifice. 
In the last clause we have the prophecy of his overthrow; 
cf. viii. 25. 


The tenth Chapter is the Prologue of the last section of 
the Book which treats of Daniel's fourth vision recorded in 
xi.-xii. This prophecy, as it deals directly with the period 
and reign of Antiochus Epiphanes himself, is really the climax 
of the second part of the work and therefore probably seemed 
to the author to need a longer introduction than the other 
chapters. The details of the vision will be discussed under 
Cc. xi.— xii. 

C. x. should be divided into five paragraphs as follows: 
— Daniel's preparation for the vision, 1-3; the appearance 
of the divine messenger, 4-8; the angel reassures Daniel, 
9-11; he explains the object of his coming, 12-14; conver- 
sation between Daniel and the angel, 15-xi. 1. 

1. a) The third year of Cyrus. This is the latest date 
mentioned in Daniel's career (see also above p. 63 on i. 21). 
It would be useless to speculate on the significance of this 
date as some have done, asking why Daniel remained so long- 
in Babylon. The date was probably merely intended to serve 
as a heading quite irrespective of any attempt at correct 
chronology l . 

1. b) But the time appointed was long. This can hardly 
be a correct rendering. Translate "And the distress was great" 2 . 

1 See below p. 168 on xi. 1. 2 See below, philological note. 



2. I Daniel was mourning, o. g. over the desolation of Israel. 

3. Pleasant bread. Lit. "bread of preciousness" 3 , e. g. 
dainty leavened bread. This is employed in contrast to the 
unleavened bread used in fasting which is called the bread 
of affliction (Dt. xvi. 3). 

4. a) And in the four and twentieth, day of the first 
month. This was Nisan 24th, the month of the Passover, 
during which a week of fasting was enjoined. 

4. b) Which is Hiddekel. This name, which occurs only 
here and in Gen. ii. 44, was perhaps borrowed by the author 
from the latter passage. There is absolutely no reason to 
cancel these words as a gloss with Behrmann (p. 67) 4 . 

5. a) A certain man clothed in linen. The idea seems 
to have been borrowed from Ezek. ix. 2 5 . The official 
vestments of the Jewish priests were of linen, as may be seen 
from Lev. vi. 3, xvi. 4, so that it was natural enough for a 
Jew to conceive of angels, the higher priesthood, in a simi- 
lar garb. 

5. b) Gold of Uphaz can only be a textual corruption for 
"gold of Ophir" which occurs f" xlv. 9. 

6. a) The beryl. Better "chrysolith", according to Josephus. 
It is called "tarshish" in Hebrew, probably because it was 
brought from Tartessus in Spain 6 . 

6. b) Polished brass. This is a very doubtful rendering. 
The exact meaning is not clear 7 . 

6. c) Like the voice of a multitude ; cf. Is. xxxiii. 3. The 
angel's voice was deep and resonant like the sound of many' 
human voices; cf. Rev. xix. 6. 

7. The men that were with me saw not the vision. It 
is strange that precisely the same thing is told of the com- 
panions of St. Paul when he saw the vision which led to his 
conversion; Acts ix. 7. 

8 See below on ix. 23. * See Kamphausen, Dan. p. 37. 8 So 
Hitzig, Bevan, etc. 6 Cf. Ex. xxviii. 20; Ezek. i. 16 and see Pliny. 
37, 109. ' See below, philological note. 


8. a) I retained no strength is absolutely necessary to 
round off the verse. There is no reason to suppose it to be 
a gloss with Behrmann (p. 68). 

8. b) The voice of his words, e. g. the sound of his words. 

9. a) Then was I in a deep sleep on my face. Better: 
"then I being unconscious on my face". The phrase is really 
a circumstantial clause. As in viii. 18, Daniel faints at the 
sound of the heavenly voice. 

9. b) And my face towards the ground. This has been 
unnecessarily regarded as a redundant gloss by Behrmann 8 . 

10. And set me upon my knees and upon the palms of 
my hands. Better "and set me trembling upon, etc." Daniel 
was lifted up by an unseen hand, evidently that of the Angel, 
from the prostrate posture to his hands and knees, a position 
still common in the East during prayer. 

12. a) For from the first day, e. g. from the beginning of 
the three weeks when Daniel had begun to prepare himself 
for a divine revelation by fasting. 

12. b) For thy words: "on account of thy words", e. g. by 
reason of thy prayers for enlightenment. This meaning is 
perfectly clear and it is quite unnecessary to translate with 
Behrmann "for thy sake". 

13. a) The prince of the kingdom of Persia is the guardian 
angel of the Persian power who had attempted to prevent 
the divine messenger from enlightening the representative of 
Israel. The allusion here is not clearly brought out, so that 
it is practically impossible to know exactly what the author 
meant by the Persian angel's resistance. It is evident, at 
any rate, that he intended to indicate that the Persians, like 
their predecessors the Babylonians and their successors the 
Greeks, were inimical to the chosen people of Jhvh. 

It is highly probable that this system of special guardian 
angels for various nations is of Persian origin, but it is by 

8 But see Kamphausen, p. 38. 


no means certain when the idea was first adopted by the Jews. 
Behrmann's view that nowhere in the Book of Daniel do we 
find a system of angelology which could not have been devel- 
oped independently along the lines of native theological thought 
without any extraneous influences, is hardly satisfactory 9 . 
While it is true that the earlier Jewish writers believed in 
angels — possibly survivals of a still more primitive star wor- 
ship — there seems to have been no tendency to establish a 
definite system or hierarchy of such divine beings until quite 
a late date, probably as late as the period of the Persian su- 
premacy. Various commentators have referred to the passages 
Is. xxiv. 21 and ^lxxxii. as a proof that the belief in national 
guardian angels was held at a very much earlier time than 
the Book of Daniel, but, as the date of both of these quotations 
is uncertain, and as they are themselves extremely indefinite 
in their allusions, no satisfactory conclusion can be drawn from 
them. The probability is that the system of angels which 
seems to be accepted in Daniel as a recognized belief was a 
natural developement of the earlier Hebrew indefinite ideas 
regarding the heavenly host, which took place under the 
influence of the elaborate system with which the Jews came 
into contact at the time of and after the Persian conquest of 
Babylon 10 . 

The idea that the "Prince of the kingdom of Persia" was 
Cyrus, a human being, as was supposed by Havernick is en- 
tirely against the context. Even Jerome recognized that this 
was a guardian angel. 

The name of the angel who revealed to Daniel the vision 
recorded in xi.-xii. is not recorded, but we are led to assume 
that he is an assistant of Michael who is the national guardian 
spirit of Israel 1 1 . 

13. b) And I remained there with the kings of Persia. 
Translate: "While I was left alone there, contending with the 

9 Dan. p. xxiii. 10 See above p. 149 on viii. 16. u Cf-i'. 21 and xii. 1. 


kings of Persia" 12 . The angel means to say that Michael the 
guardian of Israel came to aid him while he was contending 
with the hostile Persian dynasty. The allusion to the twenty 
one days is to explain why Daniel had received no answer 
to his prayer for three full weeks (v. 2). The angel had really 
been contending with the Persians since the beginning of their 
supremacy in Babylon (cf. xi. 1). 

14. For yet the vision is for many days. The vision 
points to a distant future. Some expositors translate "Since 
the vision is still for these days", i. e. for these latter days 
just referred to. The former rendering seems more satisfactory, 
because "days" may be used here as in Neh. i. 4 in the sense 
of "many days"; cf. also 1 Sam. ii. 19, where the yearly sacri- 
fice is called the sacrifice of days (scil. "many days"). 

15. I set my face towards the ground. Not as in v. 9 
involuntarily through physical fear, but voluntarily hi homage 
to God's messenger; cf. ix. 3. 

16. a) One like the similitude of the sons of men touched 
my lips. This is clearly the angel himself; cf. Is. vi. 7. 

16. b) By the vision my sorrows are turned upon me. 
The expression "sorrows" here should really be rendered "pangs", 
as it is a word used of the pains of childbirth (1 Sam. iv. 19). 
It is foimd in the sense of bodily discomfort during a super- 
natural revelation also Is. xxi. 3. 

18. So great was Daniel's terror that he required to be 
touched and reassured by the angel a second time. 

19. Be strong, yea be strong is an excellent rendering 13 . 
20—21. The train of thought here is certainly not logical. 

The question "knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee?" is 
merely rhetorical. Daniel of course knows that the messenger's 
purpose is to bring a revelation (cf. v. 14). The angel, there- 
fore, does not answer his own question at once, but proceeds 
to state parenthetically that he must return directly to fight 

12 Bevan's suggestion, p. 168, is almost the same, but see below, 
philological note. 13 So also Kautzsch-Marti. See Kamphausen, p. 38. 


for the interests of Israel with the angel of Persia and he 
very significantly prophesies that after the Persian power, he, 
the representative of the people of Jhvh, will be opposed by 
the guardian angel of Greece, a new enemy. The introduc- 
tory section would have been incomplete without this allusion 
to the power under which Antiochus flourished, a detailed de- 
scription of which is to follow in C. xi. After this parenthet- 
ical statement the angel then answers Iris own question "but I 
will show thee, etc." 

21. a) The scripture of truth is probably the book of 
divine records kept in Heaven, in which all future events arc 
entered and which is alluded to *F cxxxlx. 16. 

21. b) And there is none that holdeth with me, etc. 
Better "there is none that helpeth me", e. g. the angel speaking 
is the assistant of Michael, the guardian of Israel. 

21. c) In these things. Lit. "against these"; viz., against the 
hostile heathen powers. 

xi. 1. Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even 
I, stood to confirm and stengthen him. This is an extremely 
difficult passage, first, because of the ambiguity of the pronoun 
"him" and secondly, because of the disagreement between the 
ancient versions. It is uncertain whether the author meant "him" 
to refer to Michael or to Darius the Mede, besides which the 
verb-form "stood" is corrupt in the Masoretic text 14 . If xi. 1 
be taken in close connection with x. 21, it seems clear that 
the angel meant to indicate that he had confirmed and strength- 
ened Michael in the first year of Darius the Mede which to 
the author of Daniel was the beginning of the Persian suprem- 
acy, i. e. that he had been unceasingly engaged in striving 
with the heathen Medo-Persian power since the very beginning 
of its career hi Babylon. The author's intention seems to have 
been to impress upon his readers the constant watchfulness 
of Jhvh over the welfare of His people. 

14 See below, philological note. 



The second verse of the eleventh Chapter begins the reve- 
lation. This entire section;, which is simply a description in 
purposely mysterious language of the rise and fall of Antiochus 
Epiphanes, the great enemy of the Jewish race, has been aptly 
compared to a shadow-play, the characters of which can be 
guessed at only by the initiated. The author, therefore, in 
many cases takes especial pains to leave the subject or object 
of the verb unexpressed, in order to obscure his real meaning. 
Such a strange style was followed probably for the sake of 
his own and his readers' safety during the violent persecution 
under which the Jews were suffering at that time. 

The paragraphs relating to Antiochus himself (vv. 21-45) 
are preceded by a resume (vv. 1-20) in the form of a prophecy 
concerning the chief historical events which were to take place 
between the assumed time of Daniel — the beginning of the 
Persian empire in Babylon (537 B. C.) — and the accession of 
Antiochus Epiphanes (175 B. C). The author evidently con- 
sidered such an introduction necessary, because even he would 
have felt the incongruity of a prophecy concerning his own 
time addressed without any connecting links to a person living 
during the reign of Cyrus. He accordingly does not begin 
at once with the period of the Maccabeean persecution, but 
leads up to it quite skilfully by making the angel explain to 
Darnel what was to come to pass in his (Daniel's) immediate 
future. The climax of the prediction is, of course, the last 
section, vv. 20-45, treating especially of the reign of the Syrian 
persecutor. The author's object in this entire section is the 
same as that which he keeps in mind throughout the Book, 
e. g. to show his readers how the earlier heathen powers in- 
vited destruction by their own wicked acts and that conse- 
quently the same fate was likely to overtake Antiochus. 

It is difficult to decide just when Cc. x.-xii., were written, 
but it is probable for the following reasons that they were 


composed before the death of Antiochus. First, the fact that 
there is no mention whatever of the successful rebellion, under 
Judas Maccabseus nor of the restoration of the Temple worship, 
to both of which occurrences the author appears to look for- 
ward, shows plainly that these events had not yet taken place. 
In v. 34, for example, he seems to attempt to console those 
sturdy spirits who in their first endeavour to resist the king's 
attacks on Jhvh's worship were repulsed and disheartened. 
He explains this their fall as he does all the misfortunes of 
Israel as a means of chastisement "to prove them" (v. 35). 
Secondly, his apparently unhistorical statements regarding the 
wars of Antiochus with Egypt show that the Book must have 
been finished before the close of that king's career. The author 
introduces three allusions to such wars, the first two of which 
(25-28; 29-35) are historical, but the last of which (40-43) 
was probably an incorrect forecast. 

The chapter should be divided into eleven paragraphs : — The 
last kings of Persia, 2 ; the rise of Alexander and his succes- 
sors, 3-4; Ptolemy L, Seleucus I. and Ptolemy II., Antiochus II. 
5-6; Ptolemy IIL and Seleucus II., 7-9; Antiochus III., 
the Great, 10-19; Seleucus IV., 20; the accession of Antiochus 
Epiphanes, 21-24; his first Egyptian campaign (170 B. C), 
25-28 ; the third Egyptian campaign and the pollution of the 
Sanctuary, 27-35; description of the wicked king's personal 
character, 36-39 ; the prophecy of another Egyptian expedition 
and of the king's overthrow, 40-45. 

2. a) Yet three kings in Persia. Three kings are to arise 
after Cyrus (cf. x. 1), but there is no hint given as to their 
identity, possibly because this allusion was sufficient to inform 
the reader of the Book who were meant. The O. T. mentions 
the names of only four Persian monarchs: — Cyrus, Darius, 
Xerxes and Aitaxerxes, and it seems probable that our author 
knew no more than these and was perhaps also ignorant of 
the fact that the name Darius is not always used of the same 
persou. On the other hand, lie must have known that the 


Persian period lasted much longer than the reigns of only four 
kings (cf. ix. 25). We must conclude, therefore, that these 
kings are used here rather in the sense of historical epochs 
than of reigns, although the author may really have known 
of no other individual reigns than the ones he mentions. 

2. b) And the fourth shall be richer than they all. All 
expositors agree that this is Xerxes, so that the author's four 
kings are probably Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes and Xerxes. He 
seems not to have known that Artaxerxes I. came after Xerxes. 

2. c) He shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. 
This is the rendering of V. and appears to be correct. The 
expression "realm, kingdom" is peculiar, however, as this is 
by no means the proper term to apply to Greece at the thue 
of Xerxes. There seems to be again a confusion of historical 
facts, the author probably having in mind here the empire of 
Alexander. Behrmann asks by what other term the writer 
could have denoted the federation of Greek states. Had he 
known of the existence of various states in Greece at the 
period of which he was writing, he would very likely have 
simply used the word "Greece". 

3. And a mighty king shall stand up ; of course Alexander 
the Great. 

4. His kingdom shall be broken, etc. This is apparently 
an allusion to the division of Alexander's empire among his 
generals 1 . 

The last half of v. 4 seems to show clearly that the author 
meant to allude here to the partition of Alexander's power. 
Even for others besides those must refer then to the rise 
of subsidiary dynasties in Armenia, Cappadocia and elsewhere. 
Hitzig 2 translates "to the exclusion of those", meaning the 
sons of Alexander, but the Hebrew preposition used here 
always means "besides". 

5. a) And the king of the South shall be strong. At 
this point the author takes up the history in which he is more 

1 See p. 145 on viii. 8. 2 Dan. p. 189, 


immediately interested; that of the Ptolemsean kingdoms of the 
South and that of the Seleucidan kingdoms of the North. The 
king of the South here, therefore, is Ptolemy I. the son of 
Lagus 3 (306 B. C), the founder of the Ptolemsean dynasty, 
whose career was highly important in Jewish history, as he 
captured Jerusalem by strategy and is said to have deported 
a number of Jewish prisoners from Samaria and Palestine, to 
Egypt. He is said also to have induced many Jews to take 
up their permanent residence in Egypt because, as Stade points 
out 4 , he recognized then* importance as a connecting link be- 
tween the native Egyptians and the ruling Greek race. 

5. b) And one of his princes. This expression should go 
with what follows; viz., "And one of his princes shall be strong 
above him", etc. "His" refers to Ptolemy. The person alluded 
to is clearly Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the Seleucidan 
dynasty, who was at first an officer in Ptolemy's army and 
who in 306 B. C. became the king of Syria and of the eastern 
provinces of Alexander's dominion. So great was the power 
of Seleucus I. that he was regarded by the ancients as be- 
ginning a separate chronological era; cf. 1 Mace. i. 10. 

6. a) And in the end of years they shall join themselves 
together. The author omits entirely any mention of Antiochus 
Soter, the son and successor of Seleucus I. The subject of 
the verb "they" does not refer to the two kings mentioned in 
v. 5, but to Ptolemy II., Philadelphia and Antiochus II., Theos, 
the son of Antiochus I., Soter. 

The "king's daughter of the south" was Berenice, daughter 
of Ptolemy Philadelphia who was given in marriage in 248 B. C. 
t<> Antiochus II., in order to establish a firm alliance between 
Egypt and Syria. 

6. b) The power of the arm probably means political support 
as in w. 15; 22; 31. Berenice, in spite of her marriage to 
Antiochus, shall not retain the power to support her father. 

3 So Jerome. * Cf. Stade, Gesch. ii. p. 276; Jos. Ant. xii. 1; 

Contra Apionem ii. 4. 


6. c) Neither shall he stand nor his arm is highly un- 
satisfactory. If the text remains unaltered, it should probably 
be translated "and his arms (supports) shall not abide", i. e. 
Ptolemy's daughter shall have no power to aid him, nor shall 
his other supports be of any use to him. The only satisfac- 
tory translation, however, is that of © "and his seed shall 
not abide", e. g. the seed of Ptolemy, referring to the inability 
of Berenice to aid her father. 

6. d) But she shall be given up, etc. This text is ab- 
solutely untranslatable as it stands, because the verb cannot 
mean "given up to destruction", as the A. V. implies, nor, assu- 
ming the text to be corrupt, is it clear just what has been 
changed or omitted. Perhaps we should translate "But she 
and he that sent for her and he that begat her and he that 
strengthened her shall become a terror (?)", e. g. shall be de- 
stroyed in so terrible a way that the world shall be frightened. 
The idea seems to be that Berenice's father and husband shall 
perish, in spite of their effort to gain strength by au alliance. 
This is undoubtedly an allusion to the historical events which 
followed this unfortunate marriage. Antiochus II. was poisoned 
in 247 by Laodice, his first wife, whom he had put aside in 
order to many Berenice. Laodice also murdered Berenice and 
her child. Ptolemy Philadelphus on hearing of his daughter's 
death died of a broken heart. 

7. a) But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand 
up in his estate. Better "but one of the offshoots of her 
roots shall arise in his stead". This offshoot of her (Berenice's) 
roots is her brother Ptolemy III., Euergetes, who succeeded his 
father Ptolemy Philadelphus on the throne of Egypt. "In his 
estate", therefore, clearly means "instead of Ptolemy Phil- 

7. b) Which shall come with an army. This is clearly 
incorrect. It may mean "who shall come against the army", 
e. g. of Syria 5 . 

5 See below, philological note. 


7. c) And shall enter into the fortress of the king of 
the North. This probably refers to the capture of Seleucia 
by Ptolemy Euergetes, recorded in Polyb. v. 58. The Egyptians 
held this fortification many years. Ptolemy had attacked Syria 
in order to ayenge his sister's murder. 

7. d) And shall deal with them, e. g. with the Syrians. 

8. This yerse undoubtedly refers to the spoils carried away 
by Ptolemy Euergetes during this war. The statements made 
here are confirmed by the Monumentmn Adulitanum, the in- 
sciiption on which is giyen by Cosmus Indie opleustes in his 
Christian topography 6 . The Egyptians are said to have giyen 
Ptolemy the title of Euergetes on account of the spoil brought 
home from the Syrian campaign. 

9. This verse should be rendered: "But he shall come into 
the kingdom of the king of the South and shall return into 
Ms own land". It is probably a reference to the invasion of 
Egypt by Seleucus Callinicus who attempted to avenge the 
Syrian conquests of Ptolemy III. Seleucus was unsuccessful, 
however, and was compelled to return to his own laud. 

10. a) His sons shall be stirred up. Translate "shall make 
war", e. g. the sons of Seleucus Callinicus. These were Sel- 
eucus ILT., Cerauuus and his brother who afterwards became 
Antiochus III., the Great. 

10. b) And one shall certainly come, etc. Better "And 
be (Antiochus III.) shall certainly come and overflow and pass 
through". The latter expression is probably borrowed from 
Is. \-iii. 8. Seleucus Cerauuus was killed in Asia Minor after 
a two years' reign. He was succeeded by his brother Anti- 
ochus who made war on Ptolemy IV., Philopator, the son and 
successor of Ptolemy Euergetes. This verse plainly refers to 
the attack of Antiochus III. against Egypt. 

10. e) Then shall he return and be stirred up even to 
his fortress. The subject of the first verb is again Anti- 

u Behrmann, p. 72; also Hitzig, p. 193. 


ochus IH. who shall return to the attack after having his army 
in garrison all winter at Seleucia (Polyb. v. 66). The last pail 
of the verse should be translated "and they shall make war 
even to his (Ptolemy's) fortress", i. e. the Syrian army shall 
advance as far as Raphia, the fortress of Ptolemy about 20 
miles southwest of Gaza 7 . 

11. a) Although the Syrian king was at first victorious, 
Ptolemy eventually defeated kim at Raphia, 217 B. C, and 
again annexed Palestine to Egypt. 

11. b) He shall set forth, a great multitude, etc. means 
"he (Antiochus) shall raise a great army and the army shall 
be given into his (Ptolemy's) hands" 8 . There can be no better 

> example of the author's ambiguous style in this chapter than 
in vv. 10-11. 

12. a) And when he had taken away the multitude his 
heart shall be lifted up. Translate "And the multitude shall 
be taken away and his (Ptolemy's) heart shall be lifted up", 
e. g. the army of Antiochus shall be defeated and Ptolemy 
shall be unduly elated over his victory. 

12. b) But he shall not be strengthened by it. Better 
"but he shall not exercise strength". Ptolemy was a weak 
and indolent character. Instead of following up his victory 
as he could easily have done, he made peace with Antiochus 
as soon as possible (cf. Polyb. v. 87). 

13. a) For the king of the North shall return, etc. Thir- 
teen years after the battle at Raphia, Antiochus III. once more 
invaded the dominion of the Ptolemies with a larger arm} - . 
Ptolemy IV., Philopator, had died in the meantime and left an 
infant son Ptolemy V., Epiphanes, whose accession seemed to 
Antiochus III. to be a good opportunity to avenge the former 
Egyptian triumphs in Syria. 

13. b) With much riches. Better "with many weapons". 

14. a) The "many" who are to arise against the king of 

7 Cf. Pomp. Trog. prol. 1. 30. See, however, Hitzig who thought 
that this fortress was Gaza, the Syrian stronghold. f So Bevan, p. 179. 



Egypt are probably the Egyptian rebels who had revolted 
against Ptolemy IV. and who were still in arms against his 
young successor. 

14. b) The robbers of thy people. Better "sons of the 
violent of thy people". This is plainly an allusion to those 
Jews who, owing to the harsh treatment which they had 
received from Ptolemy IV., were favourably inclined to the 
Syrian king 9 . 

Bevan , following LXX, alters the text here and translates 
"those who build up the breaches of thy people", thinking 
that the author meant those who aimed at the restoration of 
Israel. It is unnecessary to change the text, however, to see 
that this is probably what the author had in mind. There 
must have been a Jewish faction about this tune who longed 
to throw off the rule of the Ptolemies and who consequently 
tried to make use of the Syrian power in order to accomplish 
this end, hoping no doubt to become eventually entirely inde- 
pendent. The term "sons of the violent", therefore, may mean 
the warlike predatory Jews. Kamphausen 10 thinks that this 
is a reference to the robber crew of tax contractors and all 
their adherents. The whole question is very obscure owing 
to our ignorance regarding the history of Israel at this period. 

14. c) To establish the vision. The action of these Jews 
in siding with the Syrian king, although evil, was necessary 
for the fulfillment of the prophecy. That they should fail in 
their attempt to attain independence is also quite in accord 
with the Divine Will. 

15. Cast up a mount, e. g. set up a fortification. This verse 
seems to be a continuation of w. 13-14. Antiochus, after a 
war lasting several years, completely conquered the Egyptians 
and regained Palestine. The decisive battle was fought at 
Mt. Panium with the Egyptian general Scopas who was forced 
to take refuge in Sidon and eventually to surrender uncon- 

8 Cf. Jos. Ant. xii. 3, 3-4. ,0 Dan. p. 40. 


ditionally to Antiochus. Some commentators see in this pas- 
sage an allusion to the siege of Sidon by Antiochus. 

16. a) He that cometh against him shall do according 
to his own will, e. g. Antiochus who comes against Ptolemy 
shall act as best pleases himself. 

16. b) The glorious land, e. g. of Palestine; see on viii. 9, 
p. 145. 

16. c) Which by his hand shall be consumed. Bertholdt, 
changing the vowels, translated "all of which (Palestine) shall 
be in his hand". Hitzig "with destruction in his hand". Bert- 
holdt' s rendering is to be preferred, as Antiochus subdued the 
whole land of Palestine. 

17. a) He shall also set his face to enter with the strength 
of his whole kingdom. Translate "to come with energy into 
his (Ptolemy's) kingdom". Antiochus after the Palestinian cam- 
paign shall turn his attention to the subjugation of Egypt 
proper, but shall find it more advisable to conciliate his rival 
by a treaty. 

17. b) And upright ones with him; thus shall he do. 
Translate "and he (Antiochus) shall make a compact with him 
(Ptolemy)". He accordingly shall give the Egyptian king his 
daughter Cleopatra, "the daughter of women", really "the young 

17. c) Corrupting her; perhaps "as a destruction", e. g. 
Antiochus gave his daughter to Ptolemy, aiming thereby to 
destroy Ptolemy's kingdom. Von Lengerke suggested that 
Antiochus hoped in this way to excite against Ptolemy the 
enmity of Rome, but it is much more natural to suppose that 
the Syrian king expected to have a constant ally in his daugh- 
ter at the court of Egypt who would side against her husband 
and with her father. 

17. d) But she shall not stand on his side neither be for 
him. Cleopatra will not side with her father, whose plans are 
not to be successful. 

The whole verse should read: "He also shall set his face 

Prince, Daniel. 12 


to conic with energy into his kingdom, but he shall make 
a compact with him; and he shall give him the daughter of 
women as a destruction, but she shall not avail nor shall she 
be for him". 

18. a) Unto the isles. Better "the coast -lands". Anti- 
ochus III. attacked Asia Minor in 197 B. C. and was at first 
quite successful. 

18. b) But a prince for his own behalf shall cause the 
reproach offered by him to cease. Translate "but a leader 
shall cause his insults to cease". This is undoubtedly a ref- 
erence to the Roman general Lucius Scipio (Asiaticus) who 
thoroughly defeated the forces of Antiochus at Magnesia in 
190 B. C. (Livy 37, 39-44). 

18. e) Without his own reproach he shall cause it to 
turn upon him. This is both incorrect and meaningless. Trans- 
late "but he (Scipio Asiaticus) shall pay back to him his in- 

19. Antiochus was eventually killed at Elymais while try- 
ing to plunder the temple of Bel. For "fort", render "strong- 

20. a) Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes 
in the glory of the kingdom. Translate "then shall arise in 
his place one who as a raiser of taxes shall make the glory 
of the kingdom to pass away". This verse evidently refers to 
Seleucus IV., Philopator, the son of Antiochus II., under whom 
the prime minister Heliodorus robbed the Jewish Temple 
(2 Mace. iii. 7 ff.). The "raiser of taxes", therefore, is probably 
Seleucus who instigated the mission of Heliodorus. As to the 
appropriateness of the latter part of the sentence, we may 
refer to Livy's opinion of the reign of Seleucus IV. He de- 
scribes his reign as having been an unprofitable one and not 
renowned Eor any deeds 11 . 

20. b) Within few days. Seleucus reigned 187-178, a 

" Bk. 41, 19. 


period which no doubt seemed brief to the author of Daniel, 
in contrast to the long reign of Antiochus Epiphanes 12 . 

20. c) Neither in anger nor in battle. Better "not by 
violence nor in war". This must refer to the supposed murder 
of Seleucus Philopator. That the author of Daniel believed 
Seleucus IV. to have been assassinated by the orders of Anti- 
ochus Epiphanes has already been discussed above p. 134. 

21. A vile person to whom they shall not give the 
honour of the kingdom, i. e. a person who shall not be 
regarded as the rightful heir to the kingdom. It is commonly 
admitted that this can only be Antiochus Epiphanes who 
usurped the throne after the death of his brother Seleucus. 
The rightful heir was Demetrius the son of Seleucus who be- 
came king after the death of Antiochus' son (162) 13 . 

The latter part of the verse "and he shall come in una- 
wares and shall seize the kingdom by treachery" agrees well 
with 2 Mace. v. 25 (cf. also viii. 23). The rest of c. xi. is 
devoted exclusively to the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. 

22. a) And with the arms of a flood shall they be over- 
flown from before him. Translate "And the arms of a flood 
shall be swept away from before him", e. g. the arms of Egypt 
which had often been like an overwhelming flood against Syria 
shall in their turn be swept away from before him. Bevan 
believes that this passage refers to the domestic troubles in 
the beginning of Antiochus' reign, giving as a reason for his 
theory that Egypt is not mentioned until v. 25 and that there- 
fore vv. 22-24 constitute a preliminary section and must refer 
to the Syrian opposition to Antiochus. If this were so, the 
author would hardly have designated the defeated forces of 
the Palestinian rebels as "the arms of a flood", whereas such 
a term might very readily be used of the formidable Egyptian 
army. Bevan, it is true, avoids this difficulty by arbitrarily 
altering the text, but there is really no need for such a device. 

12 So Rosenrnuller. 13 See above p. 134. 



Vv. 21-24 are without doubt a preliminary paragraph to the 
following section treating of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. 
The author, therefore, mentions in them in outline the most 
important events of that king's reign; viz., his fraudulent 
accession, his attacks on Egypt, his murder of Onias and his 
plundering propensities. This allusion to Egypt is not of 
course a reference to a separate campaign from that described 
in vv. 25 ff. 14 

22. b) Yea, also the prince of the Covenant. This must 
be the Jewish High-priest Onias ILT. who was assassinated 
by the orders of Antiochus about this time. It is not probable 
that the author can be alluding to Ptolemy Philometor the son 
of Ptolemy Epiphanes, as he would hardly have referred to 
a heathen prince in such a way. Furthermore, Ptolemy Philo- 
metor was not at that time an "ally" of Antiochus, "a cove- 
nanted prince", as some render here. 

23. All those who ally themselves with Antiochus shall be 
deceived. He shall rise to power by means of a small people, 
e. g. a few faithful partisans. 

24. a) The first part of v. 24 should be translated "He shall 
enter unawares into the fattest provinces". Some commen- 
tators find great difficulty in deciding just what these "fattest 
provinces" were. Bevan, for example, considers this translation 
to be a misinterpretation of the author's meaning and renders 
"He shall attack the mightiest men of each province unawares", 
referring to viii. 25. This translation, however, seems to 
interrupt the context. The probability is that we have here 
a general allusion to the passion of Antiochus for plundering. 
The author means to say that the Syrian king always plundered 
the richest states. Although Antiochus was a great robber of 
temple treasures, he was at the same time very generous (cf. 
1 Mace. iii. 30 ; Livy 41, 20). Polybius also records that the 
king presented every Greek at Naukratis with a piece of gold 

14 So Hitzig, p. 203. 


(28, 17). This trait of character is alluded to here by the 
author of Daniel as being different to anything ever before 
seen in the Seleucidan house. 

24. b) He shall scatter among them, e. g. among his 
followers. The "strongholds" probably refer to those of the 
Egyptians against which Antiochus must have plotted some 
time before his invasion. 

25. a) Here begins the account of the first invasion of 
Antiochus into Egypt in 170 B. C. The king of the South 
here is Ptolemy Philometor, hi opposition to whom his younger 
brother Ptolemy Euergetes or Physkon was crowned king by. 
the disaffected Egyptians during the war with Antiochus. There 
can be little doubt, however, that Ptolemy Euergetes is not 
alluded to here as Hitzig thought (p. 205). 

25. b) But he shall not stand. Ptolemy was unsuccessful 
against Antiochus Epiphanes, partly because of treachery in 
the Egyptian ranks. His own people "forecast devices against 

26. a) The first part of this verse explains the treachery 
of Ptolemy's followers. Portion of his meat should be trans- 
lated "dainties". This probably refers to his treacherous 
courtiers who betrayed him to Antiochus. 

26. b) His army shall overflow. Better "shall be swept 

27. a) Ptolemy had now been conquered by Antiochus and 
had entered into an alliance with the Syrian against his younger 
brother Ptolemy Physkon who had been proclaimed king at 
Alexandria. This league, however, based as it was on false- 
hood, could not prosper. 

27. b) For yet the end shall be at the time appointed. 
The end referred to here is the ultimate overthrow of Egypt 
and the entire success of the arms of Antiochus who is to be 
permitted to stand during an appointed tune ; evidently not for 
long, however, as he was forced to invade the country again 
in 169. 


28. a) And his heart shall be against the Holy Covenant. 
After his return from Egypt, Antiochus was enraged against 
the Jews because they had deposed the High-Priest Menelaos 
whom the Syrian king had appointed in place of Jason, the 
successor of Onias III. (cf. 2 Mace. v. 5). Antiochus con- 
sidered this movement to be a rebellion against his authority 
and proceeded against the Jews with great cruelty, plundering 
Jerusalem and the Temple and massacring many Jews (1 Mace, 
i. 20-24; 2 Mace. v. 11-21). 

28. b) And he shall do exploits and return to his own 
land. Antiochus returned to Antioch after sacking the Temple. 

29. a) He shall come towards the South. This 

must be an allusion to the third Syrian invasion of Egypt in 
168 B. C. Antiochus had made a second attack on that 
country in 169 which seems to be passed over in silence by 

V our author, perhaps because it did not especially concern 
the Jews. 

29. b) But it shall not be as the former or as the latter. 
Translate "But it shall not be in the latter as in the former". 
These words show clearly which invasion the author had in 
mind, because Antiochus was defeated in this third expedition. 
Ptolemy Philometor and Ptolemy Physkon had now become 
reconciled and were united against the common foe. 

30. a) The ships of Chittim. The term "Chittim" was used 
by the later Jews to denote all the western maritime nations 15 . 
This must therefore be an allusion to the Roman fleet which 
was sent to Egypt under Caius Popilius Laena, in order to 
force Antiochus to evacuate the country (cf. Polyb. 29, 11; 
Livy 45, 12). The LXX. translate here correctly "Romans". 
The Syrian king was unable to resist the combined Egyptian 
and Roman armies and was compelled to retreat ignominious 1 y. 

30. b) So shall he be grieved, etc. shoidd be translated 
"so shall he. lose courage and return", e. g. from Egypt. 

15 Jos. Ant. i. 6j 1. 


30. c) And have indignation against the Holy Covenant. 
Jerusalem was sacked again in 168 by the king's command. 
It was at this time that Antiochiis began his crusade against 
the Jewish religion. 

30. d) And he shall return, e.g. from Jerusalem to Antioch, 
where he will direct the persecution. 

30. e) And have intelligence with them that forsake the 
Holy Covenant. The king will be favourable to those Jews 
who have been false to their people and beliefs (cf. 1 Mace, 
i. 11-15; 2 Mace. iv. 11-17). 

31. a) And arms shall stand on his part. Better "And 
arms sent by him shall prevail". We have here an allusion 
to the large army, mentioned 1 Mace. i. 29, which Antiochiis 
sent to Jerusalem to cany out his wishes. In 2 Mace. v. 24, 
the number of troops is given as 22000. 

31. b) And they shall pollute the Sanctuary of strength. 
Better "And they shall pollute the Sanctuary, the stronghold". 
The sacrilege was done by the Greco-Syrian troops acting 
under the orders of Antiochiis, with whom a number of rene- 
gade Jews were in league. According to 1 Mace. i. 54, a 
heathen altar was built on the place of sacrifice in the Holy 
of Holies. This profanation took place in 168 B. C. It is 
stated in 2 Mace. vi. 2 that the Temple was solemnly dedi- 
cated to Zeus a little later 16 . There can be little doubt, there- 
fore, that "the desolating abomination" is an allusion to this 
act of Antiochus in turning the Temple into a place of hea- 
then worship. Whether it is a direct reference to the new- 
altar itself or merely a general one to the worship of a hea- 
then god in Jhvh's Sanctuary is not certain. 

32. And such as do wickedly against the Covenant shall 
he corrupt by flatteries. Better "he shall make renegades by 
specious devices". The king, by flatteries and various wiles, 
shall make apostates of those Jews who bring sin upon the 

1(1 Cf. Nestle, Marg. p. 42. 


Covenant, e. g. who were hostile to Jhvh. This elass is 
contrasted with "the people that do know their God", who 
shall not be weakened, but "shall be strong and do exploits". 
The direct opposite- to those who do wickedly against the 
Covenant is also the class mentioned in xii. 3 "they that turn 
many to righteousness". 

33. a) And they that understand among the people shall 
instruct many. Translate "And those of the people who have 
insight shall cause many to understand", e. g. the leaders of 
the rebellion against the tyrannies of Antiochus persuaded 
many Jews to adhere to the ancient worship and to join them 
in their struggle for freedom (1 Mace. ii. 42; vii. 13; 2 Mace. 
xiv. 6). 

33. b) Yet they shall fall, e. g. the leaders. The rebellion 
proved unsuccessful at first. 

34. With a little help. This may refer to the beginning 
of the career of Judas Maccabseus whose prospects, however, 
did not look especially blight at first. The last sentence 
should be translated "but many shall join themselves to thee 
treacherously". Many Jews deserted to the Syrians owing to 
the cruelty of the fanatical Hebrew leaders. 

35. And some of them of understanding shall fall. The 
author gives the reason why the attempt to shake off the 
oyrian yoke was permitted to be unsuccessful at first. Jhvh 
allows his people to fail, in order "to try them and to make 
them white until the time of the end", the time when He shall 
see fit to relieve them of their sufferings. Meanwhile, "it is 
yet for a time appointed". The pious must wait His will and 
pleasure and never falter in their faith. 

36. This is a truly Jewish description of the character of 
Antiochus (cf. 2 Mace. ix. 12). The Greek historians are 
inclined to regard him as a pious man noted for his generous 
gifts to Greek temples, although they also relate that he 
plundered many local shrines. That a Jewish writer should 
regard him as an irreligious monster, however, is by no means 


surprising, owing to the king's intense hostility to the national 
Israelitish religion which he believed, not without reason, to 
be treasonable against his own authority. 

37. a) The God of his fathers. Literally "the gods of 
his fathers", e. g. the national Syrian deities whose worship 
Antiochus neglected for that of the Olympian Zeus. The king's 
chief ami from the very beghming of his career had been to 
centralise his empire in every possible way, not only politi- 
cally, but also religiously. His disregard of the gods of his 
lathers — a strange reproach by the way from an Israelite — 
was probably the effort he made to abolish local usages which 
is mentioned 1 Mace. i. 41—42. 

37. b) Nor the desire of women. This is evidently some 
god. It is probably an allusion, either to the cult of Artemis 
or Nanaia at Elymais 1 7 , the temple belonging to which Anti- 
ochus attempted to plunder, or else to the widely spread 
worship of Tammuz- Adonis who might appropriately be called 
"the desire of women" 18 . 

37. c) Nor regard any god. Cf. Polyb. 31, 4, who relates 
that Antiochus robbed most of the shrines. This probably 
refers, however, to the local cults which the king was trying 
to stamp out. The statement that Antiochus did not regard 
any god is contradicted by the first sentence in v. 38. 

38. But in his estate shall he honour the god of 
forces. Translate "But instead thereof he shall honour the 
god of strongholds, e. g. in place of these other deities he 
shall devote himself exclusively to the worship of the god of 
strongholds. The probability is that this is Zeus Polieus whom 
Hoffman 19 considers to have been the family god of the 
Seleucidse. The next words, however, which seem to describe 
this unknown deity as the god whom his fathers knew not, 
appear to preclude such a theory. The deity alluded to may 

17 Cf. Appian b. Syrus, 66. See also 2 Mace. i. 13, where it is stated 
that Antiochus met his death there. 18 See Bevan, p. 196; also 

Ezek. viii. 14 and ZDMG. xvii. pp. 397 ft. ,n See Behrmann, p. 79. 



indeed be Zeus Polieus, but the author could not have thought 
him to be the family god of Antiochus. The allusions in this 
verso and the next are extremely obscure, partly because of 
the text and partly perhaps because of the author's ignorance 
of the facts. 

39. a) The first sentence of this verse is by no means 
as unintelligible as Bevan considered. It should probably be 
translated "And he shall carry this out against the most im- 
pregnable strongholds with (in aid of) a strange god", e. g. he 
shall carry out the course of action mentioned in v. 38, that 
of honouring the god of strongholds with gold and silver, etc., 
and shall accomplish this by plundering the most impregnable 
temple strongholds of their treasures, in order to devote them 
to his favourite deity. This is to be done with "in support 
of" 20 this god. There seems to be a play on the word "strong- 
hold" here. 

39. b) Whom he shall acknowledge and increase with 
glory is probably incorrect. This sentence together with the 
rest of the verse should be rendered "Those whom he favours 
he shall honour greatly and he shall cause them to rule 
over many and shall divide the land for gain". Antiochus, 
after plundering the local shrines in order to honour Zeus, 
shall aid and advance his own favourites, possibly the rene- 
gade Jews, making them governours of provinces. Finally, he 
shall seize and sell for his own profit the land of the pious 
Jews who have rebelled against his authority. 

40-43. These verses are probably no longer an historical 
compendium of events in the author's past, but set forth his 
hopes and expectations for the future. This section clearly 
alludes to another Egyptian campaign under Antiochus Epi- 
phaues which unist be subsequent to 168 B.C., the latest 
year of the events described in the preceding verses- Authen- 
tic history, however, makes no mention of such an attempt. 

20 See below philological note. 


PorphyriuSj it is true, states that Antiochus made war again 
on Egypt in about 165 and refers Dan. xi. 40-3 to this last 
campaign, but it is highly improbable that such an attempt 
was ever made. Antiochus had been thoroughly defeated dur- 
ing his third Egyptian campaign by the Roman general Po- 
pilius Lsena and Egypt was under the protection of Rome 
at the tune when this supposed last expedition took place. 
The conquest of Egypt mentioned in these verses is evi- 
dently regarded by the author as being an important one and, 
if it were historical, woidd certainly have been mentioned by 
some writers. The silence of all authors except Porphyrins 
concerning it forces us to conclude, therefore, that we have 
here an incorrect prediction by the author of Daniel who must 
have expected another Syrian attempt against Egypt. Hitzig's 
idea that vv. 40-5 refer to events previous to 168, in fact 
that they are a resume of the chief occurrences of the reign 
of Antiochus from 171 until his death, is quite contrary to 
the evident sense of the passage. 

40. At the time of the end. What follows must plainly 
be subsequent to the time of the end mentioned in v. 35 
which is used of the end of the period of persecution. The 
author clearly thought, therefore, that there was to be another 
Egyptian campaign after 168; viz., the one described in these 

41. Antiochus sweeps through Palestine, "the glorious 
land" 11 . 

And many countries shall be overthrown. Translate 
"and ten thousands of people shall be overthrown"; cf. v. 12. 

The second part of v. 41 contains a bitterly sarcastic 
allusion. Edom, Moab and Amnion are to escape from the 
wrath of Antiochus, because they are the enemies of Israel. 
Edom and Amnion helped Antiochus against the Jews (1 Mace. 
iv. 61; v. 3-8) and would naturally be spared from his depre- 

21 Cf. on v. 16 and p. 145. 


dations. Moab was probably still in existence as a tribe in 
Maccabaean times and need not be regarded as a reminiscence 
from the older writings 22 . The Moabites probably did not 
disappear until the third Christian century when they became 
absorbed by Arab tribes 23 . 

4-3. a) Precious things. Literally "hidden things". 

43. b) The Libyans and the Ethiopians. Not only Egypt 
proper, but the outlying peoples shall be subjugated by Antio- 

44. Tidings out of the East and out of the North. Antio- 
chus is supposed to be in Egypt, so that the author must have 
meant by this that the king should hear bad news from Pal- 
estine, most probably concerning the triumphs of the Jews 
and their recovery of Jerusalem. Such an event would natu- 
rally enrage him, so that he would "go forth (e. g. from Egypt) 
with great fury", in order to take vengeance. 

45. The tabernacles of his palace, e. g. his palace tents. 
The infuriated Syrian king shall pitch his royal tent "between 
the seas and the mount of glorious holiness"; viz., between 
the Mediterranean and Mt. Zion 24 , but this time "he shall come 
to his end and none shall help him". Thus shall the people 
be avenged and the time of their tribulations cease. Antio- 
chus really died in Persia in 164. This is not indicated here, 
because these chapters must have been written some time be- 
fore his death. The author therefore gives no details, but 
contents himself with the general prediction that the persecuting 
king shall be overthrown. 

— See Bevan, p. 199 and cf. 2 Chron. xx. 1; 2 where all three 
nations are mentioned as enemies of Jehosaphat. 23 Behrmann, p. 80. 
24 The sense of the passage necessitates this interpretation. The ref- 
erence must be to the Mediterranean and Palestine and certainly not 
to the Persian Gulf at Elymais as Havernick thought. For other views, 
cf. Hitzig, v. Lengerke, Behrmann, Bevan, etc. 



The twelfth chapter of Daniel is really not a distinct sec- 
tion, but is merely a continuation of C. xi. Tins last division 
of the Book falls naturally into three paragraphs: — The 
concluding paragraph of the angel's announcement, 1-3; the 
angel's last word, 4; the Epilogue, 5-13. 

1. a) At that time, e. g. at the time of the fall of Antio- 
chus, prophesied xi. 45. 

1. b) Shall Michael stand up. The guardian of Israel 
(xi. 13; 21) shall arise to protect his people. 

1. c) And there shall be a time of trouble, etc. Cf. Joel 
ii. 2. What this trouble is to be is not stated, but the author 
probably had in mind an attack against Jerusalem by a com- 
bination of heathen nations (cf. Zech. xiv. 2ff.) 1 . Hitzig thought 
that the idea of this passage was based on Jer. xxx. 7. 

1. d) Written in the Book, e. g. in the Book of Life, in 
which are recorded the names of the Just who are to enjoy 
the coming Messianic kingdom. 

2. This verse is the earliest passage in the O. T. which 
plainly teaches the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead 2 , 
but not of all the dead. The "many of them that sleep in 
the dust of the earth" are in all probability only the Israelites. 
No mention is made of the resurrection of the other nations, 
probably because the author did not believe in eternal life for 
the heathen. The resurrection of all human beings, however, 
is prophesied in Enoch xxii. which was written at a period 
when the idea of a general resurrection had become more 
widely spread among the Jews. The purpose of the writer of 
Daniel in this passage seems to be to show his readers that 
the deeds of the Israelites are to be rewarded in a future life 
according to their merits. In this state the pious are to have 

1 Cf. Bevan, p. 201. 2 See above, p. 21. 


"everlasting life" 3 , e. g. a life of eternal bliss, while the rene- 
gades and enemies of the cult of Jhvh shall "awake to shame 
and everlasting contempt". The same division into good and 
bad Israelites is seen also xii. 3. 

3. a) They that be wise. These are the same as "those 
who have insight" mentioned xi. 33, e. g. leaders among the 

3. b) They that turn many to righteousness who arc 
thought of here in parallelism with "those who have insight" 
are the direct opposite of "those who do wickedly against the 
Covenant" in xi. 32. For the idea of turning to righteousness 
or justifying, cf. Is. liii. 11. These leaders of the people arc 
to be especially glorified in the future life. 

4. a) This verse should be compared with viii. 26. "The 
Book" here in all probability refers to the entire work and 
not, as some have supposed, only to this last vision x.— xii. As 
in viii. 26, this injunction to keep the vision secret is merely 
a literary device to explain to the readers of Daniel why the 
Book was not known before their time. It evidently did not 
occur to the author that Daniel was quite powerless to "shut 
up the words and seal the Book". There was of course do 
way by which the Prophet could have kept such a vision 
hidden from immediate posterity until the Maccabsean period, 
here designated as the time of the end. Although this is per- 
fectly clear to the modern reader, it is probable that such a 
difficulty would never occur to the less accurate Oriental mind, 
so that the author's careless statement in this passage was 
quite sufficient to account to his readers for the appearance 
of Daniel's visions centuries after they were revealed. 

4. b) Many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall 
be increased. Translate "Many shall search it (the Book) 

3 This expression occurs only here in the 0. T. It is identical with 
the $m) aiotviog of the N. T. It must be carefully distinguished from 
the "life for evermore" of ¥»' exxxiii. 3 which simply means eternal life 
for Israel; cf. Bevan, p. 201. 


diligently and knowledge shall be increased", e. g. the visions 
herein recorded are to be kept hidden until the time of the 
end, when they shall be studied by many pious Jews who will 
thus increase their knowledge of the Divine will. The various 
opinions regarding this somewhat obscure passage are discussed 

5. Other two. Two more angels in addition to the one 
already speaking, perhaps Gabriel and Michael. The necessity 
for the appearance of two other angels is explained by v. 7, 
where the oath of the speaking angel is recorded. Two wit- 
nesses were necessary to make an oath binding; cf. Dent, 
xix. 15 4 . 

6. a) And one said. Better "and he said' 1 . The identity 
of the speaker is not clear, but he is evidently one of the 
two angels mentioned in v. 5. LXX., and V. all render 
here "and I said 1 ' which is clearly a careless error. Daniel 
takes no part in the dialogue, but is merely a witness; cf. 
viii. 13, where an angel and not Daniel asks the same question 
as that given here. 

(J. b) Upon the waters of the river. Cf. viii. 16, where 
the speaking angel is "between the (banks of the) Ulai", e. g. 
standing on the water. 

7. a) The speaking angel is made to swear by "Him that 
liveth for ever" that the end of this epoch of trial and perse- 
cution is to be for "a time, times and a half (a time)". This 
is of course merely a confirmation of vii. 25. These three 
years and a half are to begin with the abolition of the daily 
offering of Antiochus; cf. v. 11. 

7. b) And when He shall have accomplished to scatter 
the power of the Holy People, all these things shall be 
finished. Translate "And as soon as the overthrow of the 
power of the Holy People is completed, (then) all these things 
shall be completed". As soon as Israel's very existence seems 

* Be van 'a suggestion, p. 214. 


about to be wiped out, then shall the period of trial and 
chastisement be at an end. As Behrmann aptly puts it, God's 
help is nearest when the need is greatest. No passage in the 
whole Book illustrates better the author's purpose and there 
is none that shows more clearly the position of the Jews at 
the time when the work was written. 

8-9. And I heard, but I understood not. The preceding- 
words would have been perfectly clear to any Jewish reader 
of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, but the author makes 
Daniel say this, in order to lead up to the following question 
"How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?" The 
angel's answer "Go thy way, Daniel, etc." shows that the 
Babylonian Prophet was not intended to understand the reve- 
lation. He was merely the witness whose testimony was to 
be "sealed up" until the time was ripe. The absurdity of a 
detailed revelation of this character being made to an indi- 
vidual who lived centuries before the prophecies were to be 
fulfilled seems never to have occurred to the author. 

10. None of the wicked shall understand, but the wise 
shall understand. This is probably a generalization without 
any direct reference to understanding the time of the end. The 
wicked Israelites have no light and hence act without guidance, 
but the wise, e. g. "those who have insight (xi. 35)", being 
led by Jhvh, cannot go astray. 

11. A thousand two hundred and ninety days. These 
1290 days express in more exact figures the three years and 
a half of v. 7. Every third year it was customary to add to the 
calendar a thirteenth intercalary month, so that 3^2 years here 
would be equivalent to 43 months, each of 30 days, making 
a total of 1290 days 5 . 

12. The thousand three hundred and five and thirty 
days. The happy period to which the author was referring 
was, in all likelihood, still in the future for him. That the 

See Behrmann, p. 83. 


"time, times and a half" probably alludes to the' restoration 
of the Jhvh cult in Jerusalem has already been mentioned 6 . It 
is not known, however, what event the author had in mind 
when he specified this longer period of 1335 days which we 
may presume began at the same time as the 1290 days. He 
seems to have meant to indicate that 45 days after the close 
of the 1290 days (1335-1290 = 45) the supreme consumma- 
tion of Israel's hope, possibly the freedom of Jhvh's people 
and their establishment as the Messiah-nation, was to be re- 
alised. That w. 11-12 are interpolating glosses, or that v. 12 
is a correcting gloss to v. 11 is highly unlikely. 

13. a) The interpretation of this verse is extremely difficult. 
But go thou thy way till the end be. Literally "Go thou 
until the end 1 '. The most reasonable interpretation of the 
passage is to suppose that this is a reference to the end of 
the Prophet's life 7 . Daniel is told to pursue his own course 
until the natural end of his life shall come. 

13. b) For thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end 
of days. Better "And thou shalt rest and arise unto thine in- 
herited portion at the end of the days". Daniel after living 
his holy life in Babylon and Susa, is to rest in the grave and 
rise from the dead with the other Israelites in the final resur- 
rection mentioned in v. 3, when he shall have his rightful share 
as an heir in the hoped-for spiritual Messianic kingdom. 

See p. 140. 7 See, however, Hitzig, Bevan and Behrmann. 

Prince, Daniel. 13 




1. isxinssia:. The original Babylonian form of the name is 
Nabu-kudurri-ugur "Nebo (god of recorded wisdom) protect 
the boundaries" (e. g. of the kingdom). The great king is called 
nagir kudurreti "protector of the boundaries" (V. R. 55, 5), 
most probably in paronomasia with his name.- This seems 
better than to consider kudurri in this name to be the word 
for the royal head-dress 1 , found I. R. 49, col. iv. lOff. 

The more correct Hebrew form isama'os with n 2 , which corre- 
sponds to the Na(3ouxod()6(JOQog of Abydenus and the Na^oytodgo- 
cfOQOg of Strabo, does not occur at all in Daniel, where the name 
is always found as nsMitta, with the original 1 sharpened to -. 
A similar interchange of n and ' is seen in the Heb. cr 1 ^ = Aram. 
■,"'"in; Heb. p = Aram, -a; cf. also Heb. thus = Arab. c atMP. 
Only in this passage of Daniel do we find an x inserted after 
the second ). 

3. i. WBU5X (V. Ashpenez, Q ^AocpavzC) is e^ddently a very- 
corrupt form of some Babylonian name. The LXX. has ^AfiiEodQi 
and the Syr.-Hex. iTSia&t. Delitzsch identifies this with the tribal 

1 So Flemming, Neb. pp. 22-3. See also Meinhold, Dan. pp. 28-30. 
2 Found Jer. xxi. 2 — xxvii. 5, and from xxix. 21 to the end, as well 
as everywhere in Ezra. Elsewhere in the 0. T. the name occurs in the 
form ISMStos. s Also in Sumerian Unug-Urnk, Lehmann, J. H. U. 
Circ. iii. p. 38; Hommel, ZK. ii. pp. 102ft'. 



name "331DX of Jer. li. 27 which appears in the inscriptions as 
Asgimm-Asguza*. Although such a supposition is possible, 
it does not seem likely that the name of a tribe which had 
no connection with Babylon should have been applied, even 
in the confused traditions of the Maecaba?an period, as a 
distinctively Babylonian proper name. The final "i seen in the 
Syria c form, the q in the Greek version, as well as the general 
appearance of the name in M. and Q suggest the possibility 
that all these forms are corruptions of an original name ending 
in -tKjur; perhaps, Istar-apal-itmr "Istar (goddess of love) 
protect the son" 5 . An exact counterpart of such a name is 
Nabii-apal-ugur "Nebo protect the son", the name of the father 
of Nebuchadnezzar who was the first independent king of the 
second Babylonian empire. 

3. ii. The use of m instead of iiu in the expression tsi-io an 
is a characteristic late Hebraism; of. 2 K. xxv. 8; Jer. xxxix. 
3; 13 6 . d*]0 = o^o always means "eunuch" in the O. T. The 
meaning of the stem is probably "to be impotent". 

3. iii. D-^ms is a loanword from the O. P. fratamd "first" 7 . 

4. i. sia "knowledge" is a late Hebraism only found in 
2 Chron. i. 10; xi. 12; Dt. i. 4; 17. In Eccles. x. 20 it means 
"consciousness". The Aram, form of this word WJa has given 
the name to the Mandsean or Gnostic sect 8 . 

4. ii. Qi-iira is in all probability a derivative from kasadu 
and means "conquerors". It appears in Bab. as Kaldi = Kasdi. 

4. iii. bain is a Bab. loanword, commonly used in Hebrew 

to denote "palace" or "temple". The word is probably not 

Semitic, but seems to have been borrowed by the first Semitic 

invaders of Babylonia from the Sunierian combination e-gal 

"big house". It was known to the Hebrews as early as the 

time of Amos, the eighth century B. C. (of. Amos viii. 3). 

4 Bar and Delitzsch, Lib. Dan., p. ix. ■"• Lenormant suggests 

that the original was -vrjatUK "goddess protect (sic) the seed" (Div. p. 
182). • Winckler's derivation of 0"no 31 from the Assyr. rob sa ris 
is not satisfactory (UAG. p. 138). ' Lag.. Ann. stud. § 2289. 8 N6l- 
deke, Mandaische Gr. p. xx. 

CHAPTEE r. 197 

5. i. as-na is a loanword from the O. P. patibaga, the ex- 
act meaning of which is not clear 9 . The Greek JiOTifia'Zig, 
Athen. xi. 9. 503, and the Syriac f~.a^ are variations of the 
same word. The correct translation is probably "dainty". The 
word is written with maqqeph because the first syllable sug- 
gested the familiar rs "piece, portion/' 

5. ii. nasi "they should stand". 

G. i. bx^s-r "God is my Judge"; written bxn in Ezekiel (xiv. 
14; 20; xxviii. 3). Also ban in Palmyrene, Vbg. p. 93. 

G. ii. b&Wi'va is a regular Hebrew name like Hananiah and 
Azariah. It probably means "Who is as God is"?*' It is found 
also Ex. vi. 22; Lev. x. 4; Neh. viii. 4. 

7. i. nsNiai&n, written num-jbn, x. i. The author of Daniel 
evidently regarded the first syllable of this word as containing 
the name of the god "Bel" (cf. Dan. iv. 5 ; irsbx ottis). It is 
now generally recognized that this name is a corruption of 
the Assyrian Balatsn-ugur, "protect his life" 10 , probably an 
abbreviation for Bel-balatsu-ugur "Bel protect his life". While 
it is true that we would rather expect to find c instead of m 
in the biblical form iXftMBiaVa, representing an original s sound; 
i. e. Balatsu-ugtcr, it is possible that in Babylonian the form 
of the name may have been Balatasu-ugur with s. In addition 
to this, it should not be forgotten that the name was probablv 
strongly influenced by the similar sounding Belshazzar u . Georg 
Hoffmann's reading, ZA. ii. 56, Balat-sar-ugur "Balat preserve 
the king" does not seem admissible. He sees in Balat the 
name of a god, Saturn, and compares Sanballat, which is 
clearly a conniption of Sin-uballit, "Sin (the moon-god) has 
made him live". The Bolccd-r t v of Phot. Bibl. c. 242, quoted 
by Hoffmann, is probably not Balat. The passage as he gives 
it is as follows: <t>oivr/.t< mat Svqoi tov Kqovov "HI mi Br(L 

9 Lag., Ges. Abh. p. 73. 10 Opp. Doc. Jur. p. 282; Schrader, KAT. 5 
p. 429; Fried. Del. in Bar and Del., Lib. Dan. pp. ix. x. n Del., Assyr. 
Gr. p. 171. 


/.al Bola&rjV e.7Covo(.iaCovai. The writer may have mistaken 
BoXd9r t v for the name of a male divinity. 

7. ii. -("iid seems to be a corruption of a Babylonian word. 
It may either be for sudurakku "one endowed with the power 
of command" or, for sadraku "I command", the permansive 
of sadaru. Fried. Delitzsch suggests that it is a variation of 
Sudur-Aki "command of the Moon - god" (?) 12 . 

7. iii. -jiaia. This name seems like a corruption of some 
original Babylonian form, but no satisfactory explanation of 
it has yet been suggested. 

7. iv. laa nay has long been recognized as a corruption of 
1M -ins? "the servant of Nebo" (cf. III. R. 46, c. 1, 82, where 
the name actually occurs in a bilingual inscription, Assyrian 
and Aramaic; KAT. 2 p. 479). The form ahdu for "servant" 
is rare in Assyrian, but sometimes occurs in proper names like 
Abdimilik. The ordinary word is ardu. Bevan has called at- 
tention to the fact, that for some time after the Christian era 
the name 12a las was borne by heathen Syrians (p. 61). 

8. bvoirt*. ^Ka in the sense of "defile" is a by-form of tea. The 
ordinary expression is swa. 

10. i. no*> niyx for "lest" is an Aramaism (cf. Ezra vii. 23); 
also Syr. fcoi.' 13 . 

10. ii. d^sst "haggard"; like o%l$Qio7tog in Matth. vi. 16. The 
primary meaning of the stem qst is "to be violent" (cf. Ar. 
m'afa, and Pr. xix. 3; 2 Chi-, xxvi. 19 "to be angry at"). The 
original force is seen in the late Hebrew phrase* 4 ppi bir i-nma "a 
violent death" ; also Aram, xsn "violent wind or storm". The 
application of the word in Daniel to denote an unhealthy ap- 
pearance is probably a later extension of the usage found in Gn. 
xl. 6, where it signifies "to appear sad or disturbed in mind". 

10. iii. jjia "generation" for the classical -m is a later Hebrew 
developement common in the Rabbinical language 14 . 

10. iv. DTfiiri from nn is undoubtedly a late Hebraism. In 

" Del., Lib. Dan. p. xii. 1S Noldeke, Syr. Gr. § 273. » Levy. 
Hebr Worterbuch, p. 324 a . 


the Rabbinical idiom the stem seems to mean "to be subor- 
dinate", hence "to be bound or guilty". It does not occur in 
the O. T. except in Ez. xviii. 7, where, however, it is probably 
to be read yva, with Cornill. 

11. *0&a "guardian" (0^4f.ielaad; V. Makisar) is most prob- 
ably a corruption of the Assyrian maggaru 15 "a watchman" or 
"guardian" from nagdru "watch, guard" (cf. maggar gibitti "the 
guardian of the prison", V. R. 13. 15 ff.). The b in ns^a prob- 
ably merely indicates resolution of the doubling of the y. 

The LXX. render Idfiieodgi, which in v. 3 is the equivalent 
of the proper name tSBttJK. 

12. dWit is an irregular form of s'-in* "that which is sown", 
e. g. "garden herbs" (cf. Is. lxi. 1). In v. 16, the form d"Wit 
is probably a diminutive of this word. A similar example of 
the ending yi" in this sense is "purx "the pupil of the eye; a 
little man". Bevan compares uiiap and •pusap, p. 62 1(i . 

13. rusmro is the Aramaic punctuation for iison. 

15. sons "stout, well nourished" from sm or ura. The Assyr. 
baru, pres. ibirri (Em. 2, 139 obv.) "to be hungry", e. g. "to 
desire to eat", is undoubtedly a cognate of this stem. Deri- 
vatives from this Assyr. stem are biru "hungry" and biridu 
"hunger". Jager's translation of the pi. bariuti by "fat" n , on 
the analogy of Heb. sonn is inexact. The meaning of the 
Assyr. word seems always to be "hungry". 

For nun wo, cf. Gn. xli. 2; 18: nun rn&fna. 

20. i. nm *4bs "ten times", cf. Gn. xliii. 34; 2 Sam. xix. 44. 
The ordinary word for "time", used in counting, was ds>s, Josh, 
vi. 3; 1 Kings xxh. 16, etc. 

For hv in the sense of "more than", cf. xi. 5; Eccl. i. 16. 
This usage has an exact parallel in the Assyrian cognate eli: 
eli maxre uttir "more than before I increased it", I. R. Tig. 
c. vn. 86; eli sarrdni abia "more than the kings my fathers", 
I. R. Sarg. Cyl. 48. 

15 See Del., Lib. Dan. p. xi. 16 See Kamphausen, p. 15, on this 
word. 17 BA. ii. p. 304. 


20. ii. o^o-in from a sg. Db-in with the formative suffix 
bt as in Bin. The word is probably a derivative from unn 
"a pen". 

20. iii. DisiiMtin. Simple asyndeton; omission of the l as in 
ii. 27; 45; v. 15. 

The original form was the pte. dsipu "one who makes in- 
cantation" (LI. R. 32, 11; 38, 2; fern, dsiptum, IV. R. 57, 42 a; 
essepu "an incantation", ASKT. 75, 2). The word essepu which 
seems to be used of a sort of wailing bird, IV. R. 1, col. i. 
20-1, appears to confirm this idea : essepu sa ina all isaggamu 
"the eSsepu which wails in the city". 


1. i. The words irm QjJsnn and v. 3, wi tassrvi were probably 
suggested by Gen. xli. 8. The first form occurs' only in Daniel. 

1. ii. i"£s S-rtWti iniiu G and 0: 6 vrtvog ccvtov iysvsTO art 
avzov; V. somnium ejus fugit ab eo. Haupt suggests the 
rendering "and his dream weighed upon him", translating hSffl 
by "dream", on the analogy of the Assyrian suttu (suntu), and 
regarding nmrra as having the same meaning as if it were Qal l . 
This would necessitate, however, attributing a signification to 
nsw which it does not have in Hebrew, besides straining the 
sense of the Niphal, which in this construction would naturally 
mean "to happen, to befall" 2 . Furthermore, if Haupt's idea 
be adopted, the text of vi. 19 would have to be altered ac- 
cordingly, where we read in Aramaic : ihifes ttn nrottJi with the 
perf. of tu. This is plainly the Aramaic equivalent of our 
passage in ii. As the translation "is past" or "over" for i-rtWia 
is very doubtful and has been questioned by many, it is not 
impossible that the text of ii. 1 may be corrupt and that the 
correct reading is v*J rrns insmi "and his sleep departed (fled) 

1 Kamphausen, p. 16. 2 Cf. Neh. vi. 8; Dt. iv. 32; Ju. xix. 30; 
Pr. xiii. 19. 


from him", with the same idea for ru as in *F xxxi. 12; lv. 
8, etc. 3 

For this use of b», cf. iv. 33; x. 8; Jon. ii. 8. It is prob- 
ably a developement of the primary idea "over upon" inherent 
both in b$ and in the Assyr. eli. "To flee" or "pass over" a 
person is to omit or except him, and we actually find eli used 
for "except" in Asurb. vi. 4: nahru sanamma eli iasi "no 
other foe except me". 

2. DisuDs "reciters of incantations" from qu» which is a 
well known stem in Babylonian, e. g. JcaSdpu "to bewitch"; 
cf. atti sa tukassipinni "o thou witch who bewitchest me", 
IV. R. 50, 47 b; also V. R. 45, c. iv. 52, etc. The stem seems 
to have been a common one in the Hebrew of all periods 
from Ex. xxii. 17 until the Mishna. It is curious that the 
verb appears only in the Pi'el in Hebrew. In Assyrian, how- 
ever, although it is more usual in the Intensive, it appears 
occasionally in the Qal; IV. R. 49, 38-9 b. The Hebrew deri- 
vatives C]ttb "incantation" and &]is? "conjurer" have exact equi- 
valents, both in form and meaning, in the Assyr. Jcispu and 
Jcassapu, fern, kassaptu. 

Robertson Smith's theory that the primary meaning of the 
stem is "to cut", e. g. "to prepare magical decoctions of herbs" 
has no foundation in fact. The word, like the stem epast, prob- 
ably refers to the peculiar tone of voice affected by the con- 
jurers when -reading their mysterious formulae (see above ou 
i. 20iii). 

4. i. -pas. For the elision of the i in the Q*re, see Kamp- 
hausen, p. 16. 

4. ii. x-ubb "interpretation"; cf. Heb. -ihjb Eccl. viii. 1. This 
stem has an exact cognate in the Assyr. pasdru "to loosen, 
free"; IV. R. 56, 23; also Arabic j,**j. The expressions suttu 
pasdru "to interpret a dream", ASKT. p. 205; sunata pasdru 

:i This and viii. 27 are the only passages where rWO could be trans- 
lated "is past, finished" or fainted"; see below p. 245. 


"to interpret dreams", BENE. p. 6, 44 show a precisely similar 
usage to the Aramaic word. 

The Hebrew cognate -pins "interpretation" must be a loanword 
from some dialect where the as was lisped as a r 4 . 

4. iii. fflre read ffim; see Kamphausen, p. 17. 

5. i. For 60*naa, see Kautzsch, Gr. p. 28; Kamphausen, p. 
17; also ZA. ii. p. 275; BA. ii. p. 489. 

5. ii. nnba with n is a Hebraism. 

5. iii. xitx is a Persian loanword, equivalent in meaning to 
m->r\, vi. 13. The correct translation of Nits -oa nri>s is "the 
thing is fixed" or "determined by me". The word should be 
pointed n-itn, not x^itx, as if it were a participial form from a 
supposed stem itn 5 . 

5. iv. -(i-nsnn -pann "ye shall be cut in small pieces". P. re- 
duplicates here : iojoi :«><ti. The word is a loanword from the 
Persian ; cf. modern Pers. andam "limb"'', TfttSfin with Baphe 
to show that the form is not Ethpe'el. 

5. v. ^:. The i- ending is probably a relic of the old 
genitive case; cf. Ezra vi. 11: iVia which plainly shows the 
nominative. The word may be a cognate of the Heb. bai "to 
wither, decay"; cf. Job xiv. 18, and rftaj corpse, as well as 
of the Assyr. nabalu "to destroy", seen in the common ex- 
presssion abbul, aqqur, ina isdti asmp "I destroyed, I devast- 
ated, with fire I burned". We have a similar interchange of 
n and i in na and la; cf. Ezek. xxiii. 35; 1 Kings xiv. 9» 

5. vi. fiaW; is Ethpe c el formed on the analogy of an 
Ettaphal; cf. Dirn->, Ezra. iv. 21; dwpio Ezra v. 8 6 . 

6. i. X2T35, also in T. Jer. xl. 5 7 ; Dt. xxiii. 24. It is prob- 
ably a Persian loanword, perhaps from the Old Persian ni- 
baj-va "gift" 8 . Bar and Ginsburg point it ttataa in v. 17, q. v. 

4 Cf. Haupt, BA. i. p. 181. r> So Bar, Lib. Dan. p. vi. who makes 
the same error in iii. 16. The word is a derivative from the 0. P. 
azda "sure" according to Noldeke (Schrader, Cun. Inscr. p. 430). 6 See 
Noldeke, Syr. Gr. § 159. 7 According to Lagarde, prsal )Vm. 8 So 
Haug, Ew. Jahrb. 1853 p. 160. 


6. ii. ip" 1 means in Hebrew both "precious" and "honourable*', 
but only "honour" in Aramaic, "pp" 1 , however, signifies "hard, 
difficult"; Dm ii. 11. 

0. iii. •)!-& "therefore", as in ii. 9; iv. 24 and in Heb. Ruth 
i. 13. There is no reason for translating it "only", as Bevan 
suggests (p. 69). 

8. *i bnp b= will bear the translation "although" as in v. 22. 

9. i. yam. ni is undoubtedly a loanword from the Old Persian 
data "justice"; mod. Pers. dad, which is treated as a feminine 
in Aramaic owing to the final n. m means "religious law", 
vi. 6. 

9. ii. nniz is nom. app. ; and not an adjective. 

9. iii. xnirnu "corrupt"; "low"; cf. vi. 5, is cognate with the 
Assyr. saxtu "humble" 9 , written also saxtu with a by partial 
assimilation to the preceding n; cf. I. R. Nglr. i. 25. The stem 
is saxdtu "to let down 11 , I. R. kSenn. c. iii. 77, from which 
we have also sixtu "something torn down"; sixat epiri "torn 
down masses of earth", I. R. 52. nr. 4. 16 a. 

9. iv. yiraatri ; Q*re yiraaiwi Hithp. is better, because it ex- 
presses more accurately the idea "try to agree among your- 
selves". The original meaning' of the verb in the Qal is "to 
buy", but in the Pa'el "to sell". 

9. v. Tti» for snx, cf. NSisa for roisa, verse 21. This reso- 
lution of a doubling by the insertion of a nasal is not peculiar 
to Aramaic alone, but occurs also in Hebrew; cf. Eccl. viii. 
5; *¥ ix. 21; l F xix. 3, and in Assyrian, as in inambu, gumbu, 
for inabbu, gubbu 10 . 

10. i. inx "There is." Before suffixes it often occurs in the 
form mx; see Kautzsch, op. cit. p. 125. It was originally a 
substantive of the stem ]/"rH, cognate with the Hebrew bicon- 
sonantal noun ar, a formation like 15, "son", WB, "name", and 
the Assyrian isu \ r ^. The form ">nx with final i is a second- 
ary developement from the noun, Avith the addition of \ ^nx 
comes from an oiiginal yaty (irv), the construct state of which, 

u With n, I. R. 52, nr. 4, 3a. 10 Cf. ZA. v. p. 395; Sfg. p. 22. 


Vii, was pronounced "'nix (inx) in Aramaic, initial i becoming, 
as always, i. The Syriac form Why a "being" — xb ov, is prob- 
ably a form with a denominal Msbe, as for example in sPgusya. 
The triradical stem ending in i is found in the Assyrian verb 
isu "to have"; "J/"" 1 ^. In Assyrian the original short form isu, 
mentioned above as corresponding to £■> and rm, occurs, for 
example, Nimrod Epic, 13. 3; 5. 37, etc. Similar biconsonantal 
forms are nouns like saptu "lip"; daltu "door"; ilu "God"; 
binu "son"; bintu "daughter", etc. The negative of Syriac 
Wh is laHh contracted from Id -f- Wh. A similar contraction 
is found in the well known Arabic ^j*jJ (the only form of this 
stem preserved in Arabic), and in Assyrian lam = la -\- isu lx . 
10. ii. fcMi is undoubtedly a Hebraism. The purely Aramaic 
form ^3"; occurs in iii. 29; also v. 16 iavt. 

10. iii. ■$» is the pure Hebrew form, instead of sobs. Be van, 
however, expresses a doubt as to whether such segholate for- 
mations in Aramaic may not be permissible (p. 71) 12 . 

11. ~ph here means "except", as in iii. 28; vi. 6, 8, 13; not 
"therefore" as hi v. 9. 

12. i. o:n is «Vra£ keyof-ievov. It occurs in T. in the form 
ods. Behrmann rightly rejects the reading here as incorrect 
and reads 003 "was displeased", a cognate of the Assyrian 
nasasu 13 . It is highly probable that the LXX. may have 
had this reading in their original text; they translate : tote 6 
(iaoilevg ovvyvog yev6f.ievog. 

12. ii. bm "na-on hdb. This usage of h as a sign of the 
accusative is very common hi Aramaic and is precisely ana- 
logous to the ana of the later Babylonian. 

14. i. nsi3 "wisdom, understanding"; see on iii. 10. 

14. ii. -mx is generally considered to be a corruption of 
Eri-ahu "servant of the moon-god" (Bar, Lib. Dan. p. ix.). 

14. iii. carina ni "chief of the executioners". The stem 
tabdxu in Assyrian also means "to slaughter" ; cf. tabixu "execu- 

11 See KB. i. p. 40, 25: lassu, 12 See also Kautzsch, Gr. p. 92. 
13 ZB. p. 92; p. 23 n. 1. 


tioner", Sb. p. 126; also naftaxn "a slaughter-block" or "tor- 
ture bench". 

15. fnva The primitive form was probably *"i7X, which be- 
came later ",nx; then, by vocalic attraction yi», and finally by 
distraction -p.'nN. The word is cognate with the Hobrow tx-'nK 

and the Arab. f<M. 

16. i. tun. Cf. Heb. rwa. This stem appears also in Assyr. 
bau in the sense "demand" V. R. 5, 32. Ba'itu means "a 
desired object"; bait Hani "the beloved of the gods", Shalm. 
Mon. Obv. 6. 

16. ii. pt "time", Heb. )a\ (Neh. ii. 6; Esth. ix. 27; 31) is 
a loanword from the Old Persian mrvan; cf. mod. Pers. and 
Arab, zeman. 

16. iii. Hsbnb mini-ib snrasi is an elliptical construction; ''and 
(it was) to show the interpretation to the king". 

18. i. 'pom is generally plural in Heb. in the sense of "mercy". 
It is cognate with Assyr. remu "mercy"; (ASKT. p. 99, 53; 
ZB. p. 20), with the Arabic 'i+^.y and with the inverted 
Ethiopic form mexra. 

18. ii. xn "mystery" is a Persian loanword. 

18. iii. innnn "his companions", from a sing. *"i?ri, is a 
cognate of Heb. *^an, Job xl. 30. The Assyr. ebru "friend" 
is an exact equivalent; IV. R. 49, nr. 2. 49; HNE. p. 36, 16. 

18. iv. ■&» is probably not the passive ptc, but, as Bevan 
points out (p. 72 B.), is the old perf. passive which is seen 
also in the pi. form -nai, iii. 21; vii. 9. 

20. ninb The imperfect with b-preformative is occasionally 
used in an optative sense, as in this passage, but in some 
cases shows simply the force of a regular imperf., as in ii. 
28-9; iii. 14. It cannot be asserted that there is any difference 
between the 3 p. masc. with i-preformative and the same form 
with ''-preformative. It is possible that the form with b was 
used with the verb, in order to avoid any similarity to the 
Divine Name. 


In Mandaean, as in Syriac, the regular prefix of the third 
pers. masc. of the imperfect is n, but sometimes I. It is highly 
probable that the n form is secondary, being a developement 
of an original I, (see Haupt, BA. i. 17), which, as is well known, 
occurs in Assyrian in a precative signification. We may 
compare in this connection, Laurie, Hebraica, ii., No. 4, p. 249 ; 
"Remarks on an Assyrian Precative in Daniel." 

In Mandaean, as in Aramaic, the two prefixes appear to 
have an equal force; so much so, that in the former language 
the I sometimes occurs by mistake for the unchangeable n of 
the first person 14 . 

22. i. &tnpi»S "deep wisdom' 1 ; cf. Assyr. imqu "wise", II. R. 
16, 64 b; neniequ "wisdom", EIH. i. 7. 

22. ii. bmia "light". The tyre reads the common Aram, form 
x-nnj. In view of the fact, however, that we find mo v. 11; 
14 with % and also owing to the analogy of the Syriac, the 
reading of the K'thib is preferable. The presence of the o- 
vowel in sown should not be overlooked in this connection. 
The writer probably wished to bring out the contrast between 
the opposing ideas of light and darkness and therefore pur- 
posely employed the light vowel, as it were, in the word x-nru. 

22. iii. sciuj "dwells". The original meaning of this stem 
is "to loosen"; cf. Assyr. sarti. In primitive Semitic the mean- 
ing must then have arisen "to cast bundles from the beasts 
of burden"; e. g. preparatory to encamping for the night, so 
that later the idea "dwell" was developed. We may compare 
in this connection the exactly analogous expressions in Arabic; 

Ja. "loosen"; &i*P, Jus? "place of rest". The month-name 
Tishri is a derivative from the Assyr. saru. Its original mean- 
ing was "beginner", because, being the seventh month, it 
begins the second part of the year. 

14 See Noldeke, Mand. Gr. § 166 and for examples in Mandaean of 
the impf. of the verb xin "to be" with b preformative, § 196. Impf. 
forms with b preformatives are also found in the dialect of the Bab. 
Talmud; see Luzzato, Gramm. d. Idioms d. Thalmud Babli, p. 84. 


22. iv. ham for ram; cf. rspr, iv. 19; mas, iv. 32. The 
form with the vowel is more usual in Aramaic. 

23. inrcx; better vihaK. 

24. by "he went in" has of course nothing to do with the 
Heb. r&S "to go up". It is a perfect of bbz from which by 
"yoke 1 ' is a derivative. The prep, bs is used like Heb. bx 
here as in vi. 7. 

25. i. isan for byr\ (cf. v. 24 aud iv. 3), with compensative 
*, for resolution of the doubling; see above note v. on v. 9. 

25. ii. nroian 1 p. of Haphel with the accent thrown back 
and the vowel pathach inserted for euphony, e. g. *ipirowi = 
hhDttih = hh/aioh. The form is certainly not a Pe c al with n 
wrongly written for x-prostheticum. 

25. iii. "»aa ■)» "h -as. There is no need of the particle *n 
after naa. 

26. bnz is a stem found only in Daniel. It is undoubtedly 
a variation of the Heb. bis and b^, found also in Aram., iii. 
17; iv. 34. The stem appears in Assyrian in the form akalii; 
pret. tuMal 15 , Deluge 20 (like the Heb. ^?w); aMu "an official/ 
one holding authority", I. R. Sarg. 64. 

28. i. nna for is "except" and "pa "from"; cf. ya y\n, Eccl. 
ii. 25. 

28. ii. wav r-nrxa "in the end of days". The Assyr. ina 
arhat ume is an exactly equivalent expression. Behrmann points 
out that the ordinary Aramaic idiom would be K^aii qio. He 
suggests that the author of Dan. took the expression Rial*" rvnrtsta 
from Is. ii. 2. 

29. For xrax, followed by the suffix of the second person, 
cf. on v. 18. 

30. i. *h rvm bv "in order that"; cf. Eccl. iii. 18; vii. 14; 
viii. 2; Job v. 8. 

30. ii. -p-Tim "they might make known" is an impersonal 
construction used as a circumlocution of the passive 16 . 

15 Cf. BA. i. pp. 123-4. 16 See Kautzsch, Gr. § 96, c. 


31. i. i^x "behold" occurs only in Dan.; cf. vii. 8, and i-ia, 
vii. 2; 5; 6; 7; 13. Owing to the - in the latter form, these 
words were generally considered to be derivatives from nso 
"to see". As this root, however, does not appear as a verb 
in Aramaic, any connection between it and i^&m-ik is very 
improbable. Behrmann calls attention to the existence of 
the form "£>n in the inscriptions 17 and to ^n and "'ix in the 
later Aramaic. It is not impossible that all these forms are 
variations of a primitive ^, cognate with the Assyr. hi "verily", 
which is used primarily as a particle affirmative of something 
which has already occurred (AW. p. 373). The Heb. conditional 
conjunctives 'b-*bn may also belong in this category. 

31. ii. ribx "image" was commonly used in Aramaic of the 
image of idols 18 ; cf. in. 1. This word is an exact equivalent 
and cognate of the Assyr. galmu which is used, for example, 
of an idol, Asurb. vi. 53. It is probably from the same stem 
as galmu "black"; ASKT. p. 91, 58; p. 124, 19, possibly owing 
to the dark colour of the material of which the Assyrian images 
were generally made. 

31. iii. in is used here as an indefinite article. 

31. iv. -,sfl "that" is peculiar to the Book of Daniel. It is 
found only here and in vii. 20-1. It is a combination of the 
pronoun r\p and the well known demonstrative suffix n. 

31. v. "Wi "its form"; LXX. and 7TQoaoipig; V. statura. 
In v. 6 however it means "face, complexion, hue". The word 
is not borrowed from the Persian 19 , but is most probably a 
cognate of the Assyr. simu "face", which is explained by 
SAK-KI "surface of the head", V. R. 31, 14 c. 20 For the 
interchange of m and i, see Haupt, ZA. ii. pp. 267; 273. 

17 CJS. 2. 137. 18 Maimon, More Nebochim i. 1 ed. Munk, p. 35; 
T. Lev. xxvi. 1; Is. xlii. 8; also ZDMG. xxix. p. 110. ,n Noldeke, 
Mand. Gr. p. xxxi. He retracted this theory, however, ZDMG. xl. p. 
732. ■" Delitzsch, Prol. p. 152; Assyr. Gr. p. 73; Jensen, ZK. ii. 
p. 43, 2. 


31. vii. ni-i "its appearance" is the only word in which a 
trace of the stem nan appears in Aramaic. 

32. "Win "its breast" from **in, cognate with the Heb. ntn 
(ii) is used of the breasts of animals; Lv. vii. 30; Ex. xxix. 
26—7, etc. It is generally employed thus in Aramaic, as in 
T. Num. xviii. 18, but in T. Pr. xxiv. 33, it is used of a 
man's bosom. 

33. i. y\ran K e tMb; "proa Q're. As to the relative correct- 
ness of these two readings, see Kamphausen, pp. 18-19. 

s - - 

33. ii. v|on "clay"; cf. ii. 42; 45 and Arab, o'vi- "clay ves- 
sel". This word is clearly cognate with Assyr. xagbu "clay 
vessel", IV. R. 16, 62-3 a; xagbatti, Sarg. Cyl. 9; xangabu 
"potter", V. R. 32, 4 c. The word can have no connection 
with aspu (Senn. v. 73) "fabrication, work", from esepu, as 
suggested by Delitzsch, Prol. pp. 68 ff., because in this case 
the ft of the Aramaic would appear in Arabic as _ which is 

represented in Assyrian by the simple aspirate. The strong 
n— • is always equivalent to the Assyrian x, as is the case 

in this word. 

34. i. rnnnn. LXX. and S insert the expression e£ oQOvg 
"out of the mountain" before this word, which shows that their 
original text must have had aiiaa here. Kamphausen (p. 19) 
considers that this must be an erroneous repetition from v. 35, 
as its introduction is out of place in v. 34. 

34. ii. On nrra, Bar and nrra, Kamphausen, see Bevan, Dan. 
p. 39. 

35. i. *px Tins pointing indicates a stem piTp*i, but the 
stem in Daniel is usually in the Haphel, as in v. 34 2 1 . 

35. ii. mns "together"; cf. -ii-ind, Ez. ii. 64 and Assyr. 
istenis from isten "one (AL. 3 p. 93, B. 5). The Greek combi- 
nation ? tvcc, 1 Cor. xiv. 31 is plainly an imitation of the 
Semitic idiom. 

35. hi. Bip-^N "threshing floors of Bummer", "flx is a.Tta'% 

21 For full discussion, see Kautzsch, (Jr. § 4G, 3c. 

Prince, Daniel. 14 


Xeyoiuevov in Daniel, but common in the form W«, tfWK in the 
later Aramaic. The Arabic andar for *addar, and baidar for 
xi-px rTO are cognates. There is no reason for supposing with 
Lagarde that the word is of Iranian origin 22 . It is quite pos- 
sible that it may be a Babylonian loanword from the same 
stem as aduru, II. R. 52 nr. 2. 61, which seems to denote an 
enclosed space (AW. p. 29). Addru "& receptacle", Zur. Voc. 
11; 17-19 appears to be a derivative from the same root. 

35. iv. ns&s for nx^p is clearly voweled on the analogy 
of nnp. 

37. icon "power' 1 . Behrmann translates this "riches", instead 
of "power" (p. 15); cf. the verb form -^di-p "they take pos- 
session of", vii. 18; 22, and Arabic ^-ci^.. In Syriac, however, 
_fli^ means "to be powerful", while in Heb. ",0'n means "wealth 1 ', 
and fin "strong". 

38. "pix-i, Q e re "pirn, as in Syriac; cf. yyavp (fvarp), iii. 3; 
■pssi (ivn), iii. 19; fWi (pv+i) t Ezra vii. 25 23 . 

39. i. i-inx, fern, for m-m like isba for msba, with omission 
of the final n. 

39. ii. -pa w\x "lower than thou". The Q e rt- snx is the 
better reading. 

39. iii. fcorv^r, Q e re nxrvbn; see Kamphausen, p. 19 and cf. 
iii. 25-6; 32; vii. 7; 23; 40. 

40. btn "crushes", oltiolS, Xey6{.ievov in O. T. is" a cognate 
of the well known Assyr. zctsdlu, V. R. 18, 33 cd. ff. 

41. ins "potter"; literally "a collector", e. g. of clay; cf. 
Assyr. paccdru "potter" V. R. 32, 18 e; AW. p. 521. 

48. "pao a"i. Heb. n^ao is undoubtedly a loanword from Assyr. 
saJcnu "governour" from the stem sakanu "place, appoint". 

22 (ies. Abh. p. 10. 2:1 Bevan, Dan. p. 75; Kamphausen, p. 19. 



1. rra^px. The usual prefix of the causative in Daniel is n 
(cf. Kautszch, Gr. § 33, 2). There are, however, nine cases 
of Aph'el with x; viz., ii. 45; iii. 1; 19; iv. 11; 16; v. 12; 
vi. 8; vii. 8; 15. 

2. i. x^s-i-urnx, also vi. 2, etc.; Esth. iii. 12; Ezra viii. 36, 
is undoubtedly a corruption of the Old Persian kshatrapavan, 
from which the later Greek octTQ(X7Ti]g is a derivative. The 
word seems to denote the head of a province. 

2. ii. who. See above p. 210 on ii. 48. 

2. iii. xmns, sing, xns (Ezra v. 14), is found also Dan. iii. 
27; vi. 8. It is clearly a loanword from the Assyr. paocdtu 
"district" *, irompixu u to steer, govern", and also"agovernour" 2 . 
The Aram, xns in Daniel is used to denote a vice-governour, 
not equal in rank to the JODsn'imnss. 

2. iv. join-nx, translated "judges" in the A. V., is a Persian 
loanword which seems to mean "councillors". It was probably 
originally endarz-gar, from endarz "counsel" 3 . 

2. v. joimj "treasurers"; Ezra i. 8; vii. 21. Be van 4 and 
others suggest the alteration x-nmn from Pers. hamdawar "a 
state-adviser", on the analogy of v. 24 and vi. 18. This does 
not seem necessary, as it is quite possible that the word is a 
by-form of the ordinary inn "treasurer", itself a Persian deri- 
vative. For the interchange of n and t, cf. Kautzsch, Gr. 
§ 10, 1 a. Lagarde 5 , on the other hand, suggested cancelling 
the word entirely as an error repeating the following sonnm, 
because there are only six classes of officials in LXX. and 
0, but seven in M. This is not satisfactory, however, as the 
LXX. deviate from M. in enumeration also in v. 4 and we 
are not bound to follow them. 

1 Cf. bel paxdti "go vera ours"; Senn. v. 9. 2 Khors. 178. 3 Cf. 
Lagarde, Symrn. i. 45, 116; Noldeke, Tabari, p. 462, note. * Dan. 
p. 79. 5 Lag. Ges. Abh. pp. 27 ff.; Noldeke, Mand. Gr. p. 51. 



2. vi. soinm is a Persian compound from M "law" and the 
final formative syllable "ia~ (seen, for example, in lata). The 
Old Persian form is databara, mod. Pers. dcttvar. The meaning 
here is probably "judges", as in the A. V. 

2. vii. x.^Pisn is a word of very doubtful origin. It may be 
a derivative from the stem xns "to open, make clear, explain", 
and consequently be a designation for "lawyers, advisers". The 
Arabic afta, ptc. mufti, in the fourth form, has the meaning 
"advise", which, however, does not appear in the other Semitic 
languages. In Assyr. the Shaph'el of pitu "open" is used once 
to express the idea "to cause to see, to make clear"; Senn. 
Kuy. 4, 12; usaptuni pdnisu. We find also put pani used 
adjectivally for "clear, perspicuous" (AW. p. 552). The n 
prefix of fcorsn makes it very difficult to explain the word. 
It certainly does not mean "sheriffs" as in the A. V. 6 

2. viii. laioVio. The stem abu? occurs also in Assyr. in the 
form saldtu "to possess, conquer". 

4. i. wro "herald", only here inBiblical Aramaic, but common 
in the Targums and in Syriac. It is probably a regularly 
formed nom. agentis from the verb ro, found only v. 29 in 
Biblical Aramaic, which is itself a loanword from the Greek 
/.rjQioaeiv (see Kautzsch, Gr. § 64, 4; Behrmann, Dan. p. ix.). 

4. ii. kjhn, sing, nax, v. 29. Bevan's assertion that this 
word originally means the offspring of one mother "thus pre- 
supposing the matriarchal condition of society" 7 is not satis- 
factory. The truth seems to be that Syr. jiuooj, Ar. jLcl and 
Assyr'. ummatu and ummdnu are not derivatives from the word 
for "mother", but together with it, come from a common original 
stem ="2X "to enclose, comprise, embody". There can be no 

doubt that ummu, J, ox, etc. "mother 11 originally meant the 
womb or enclosure in which the child is born. The same idea 
is seen in the Assyrian ammammu "vessel"; K. 242, c. iv. 25. 

The Semitic word disx (sg. *nsx) from this stem meaning 

1 See also Behnnann, Dan. p. ix. 7 Dan. p. 80. 

CHAPTER 111. 213 

"people, multitudes" is plainly a developement from the second- 
ary idea "to comprise, group". It is hardly safe to generalize 
from the Aram, word max regarding a primitive matriarchal 
condition of society. 

5. i. smpiniaa and x;np "pipe" and "horn" respectively 8 are 
the only Semitic words in this list of musical instruments. 
The former is from a stem pnir "hiss, blow' 1 which occurs also 
flu. v. 6 nipi"!)*), where it probably refers to the piping of a 
flute or syrinx and not to "bleatings" as the A. V. renders 
it. The xrvipTiiBa was in all probability the same instrument 
as the asi", e. g. a syrinx. 

5. ii. onnip, -p-irons and rrosaio are plainly loanwords, as al- 
ready indicated pp. 77-8, from the Greek M&aqig tJ'alTrjQtov and 
auf-icpcovia respectively. The first word should be pointed tnrrp 9 . 
The Q e rc changes it to the ordinary oinp of the Targums ; cf. 
T. Is. v. 12. Behrmann, p. ix., suggests that the form rpss^D 
of iii. 10 is more correct than i-paSTaio and that it yoes back 
to some Greek word connected with oixpcov "tube, pipe". He 
translates it "bagpipe", regarding it as a synonym of the Heb. 
Sins which, however, was more probably the syrinx or pan's-pipc. 
The chief objection to his view is that there is no such Greek 
word as aicpcovict. The form i-P3sio was probably merely an 
Aram, mispronunciation for av^iifcovia. On ■pvjros with a, 
see below p. 214. 

5. iii. rosiu is clearly the semitized form of oa(j,(ivm) "the 
triangular harp". The origin of this word is uncertain. Accord- 
ing to Strabo (471) the instrument was of barbaric origin. It 
was probably Egyptian. 

5. iv. xiBt 131, cf. vv. 7; 10; 15; Syr. zena, cstr. sail, also 
in Heb.; W cxliv. 13, is probably a Persian loanword from 
mn, the cognate of yivog 10 . 

8 See Cheque, Encycl. Brit. vi. pp. 803; 807; Driver, Introd. p. 470; 
Derenbourg, Heb. ii. pp. 7ff. ° Kamphausen, p. 21. 10 Noldeke, 
Maud. Gr. p. 97; Syr. G'r. § 14(>; Lagarde, Reliquiae juris Eccles. grace 
p. xxviii. 


6. i. y2, load ■■?, following the Syriac; so Kamphausen, p. 21. 

G. ii. bw] t cf. Heb. )t\\ 

6. iii. striSttj (Bar) or, according to the accepted text of M. 
xr-r, should be ansa?, both here and in iv. 16. nrt ; has a in 
the first syllable; see Kamphausen, p. 21. 

6. iv. pn$ iii. 11; 15; 17; 19-23; 26 "oven, furnace", which 
is found in Syr. JjeZj Mand. tana, Ar. ^^jil and Eth. aton, 
is certainly cognate with and may be a derivative from Assyr. 
atunu "furnace", K. 55, Obv. 3; also in the form utunu, 
Sb. p. 95. 

7. "pnuaos with b for r\ Behrmann compares the Ar. santir. 
Generally in Aram, and in later Hebrew, n stands for & and 
•j for t; cf. yrcNFi, d-sctTQOv, but we do find soa^ti, TQayr^ia; 
cf. Strack, Neuheb. Gr. p. 13 § 6. 

8. i. The qibbuts in -p-aa for -pas from -oa is like mod. Ar. 
fatha which is commonly pronounced almost like Eng. ii in 
but, e. g. fut-ha. 

8. ii. 'pi-r^p ibDXi, lit. "ate bits of the Jews", e. g. "accused 
them wrongfully" (also v. 25), occurs also in Syriac. Precisely 
the same expression is found in Assyr.: qarce akalii "to eat 
gnawingly, to slander, accuse falsely" (AW. p. 597) u . It is 
quite possible that the form of the Aramseo-Syriac idiom was 
suggested by this Assyrian expression, although the idea of 
devouring flesh as synonymous with slandering was common 

also among the Arabs; cf. s+i Ay I "he traduced him"; %}£\ 
"slander". The meaning in Daniel is clearly "to accuse wrong- 
fully". The author could certainly not have had in mind the 
idea of sycophants, as Behrmann suggested, p. 20. 

10. bSts matt) "thou didst command"; cf. v. 29; iv. 3; vi. 27, 
e. g. "thou didst issue an edict". Aram. &SB and Assyr. tenni 
mean both "command" and "understanding". For the former 

11 Qarc.ii from qardc.ii "to guard, clip off"; cf. ikkiba akdln "to eat 
guilt" which means "to take guilt upon oneself", e. g. to do wrong, 
IV. R. 51, 13b. See also ZA. vi., p. 246. 


meaning, cf. also on v. 2; Ezra iv. 8; 9; 17 and in Assyr., 
IV. R. 54, n. 1, 2: etlu hui timisu "the husband with his 
command"; I. R. 46, c. iii. 57: hi Mm ramdnisu "of his own 
accord (command)". In v. 12, bsra ** -pb-j laia xb "they have not 
considered thee", we have an excellent example of o^a in the 
sense of "understanding, consideration"; cf. also ii. 14; vi. 14, 
and in Assyr. I. R. Samsr. ii. 18: amelu tenia "a man of 
understanding"; IV. R. 57, c. iii. 33: usanna tenki "I will 
change thy understanding", e.g. "make thee mad" 12 . For the 
verb fa»o "to feed", see iv. 22, and for dsa "account", vi. 3. 

12. i. -,inrp ana% Xey6/.ievop in Biblical Aram., but common 
in the Targums; see Bevan, p. 38. 

12. ii. The Q e re ywibtp should be "psroiTi {KHhlb). M. caucels 
everywhere the i of the plural 13 . 

12. iii. -pubs xb -nbxb "they worship not thy gods". The 
regular meaning of nbs is probably "to split 14 , break open"; 
then, "to till the soil", as in Ar. ^JLi (cf. —3*i "agricultural 

labourer"); then, "to cultivate a god", hence, "to worship", as 
here in Daniel and "to serve", as in Ezra vii. 24 15 . Finally, 
"to reverence, fear", as in Assyr. palaxii, passim. The word 
appears in Arabic with _ instead of ^, because it is an 

Aramaic loanword and the n in West Aramaic was pronounced 
like Arabic _ 16 . We find a precisely similar case in masaxu 

"measure", I. R. 7, c. viii. 22 e which appears in Arabic as 
_£• i- *j whereas it should be -s^***, according to the law of 


13. i. wi with pathach, but in the Targums SWMi, is a 
metaplastic formation like sbs, iv. 12, but xacs, iv. 22; bro 
v. 5, but sobro, Ezra v. 8; cf. Kautzsch, Gr. § 54, e. 

13. ii. »ah, but v. 19 start. 

13. iii. WW "they were brought"; cf. vi. 18 rnn^n, but v. "» 

12 Cf. also Asurb. c. viii. 6. 13 See Kamphausen, p. 21. 14 Prov. 
vii. 23; Job xvi. 13. 15 In spite of Delitzsch, Prol. pp. 176 If. 18 See 
Noldeke, Syr. Gr. p. 4. 


rrvjri "they brought". The first two forms arc representatives 
of passives, which, as Wellhausen remarks, may be new devel- 
opements from the participle 17 . 

14. i. x-istn, better &nsrj, if M. is to stand. Bevan, p. 83, 
and Behrmann, p. 21, following ii. 5; 8 suggest the reading 
^1^l> "is it certain?" This is really the only satisfactory ex- 
planation of the word. The A. V. translates correctly "is it 

14. ii. ■jiwaw), a ShaphVl loanform from the Assyr. siizubu 1 * 
"to save, rescue", passim. The Syriac sauzeb is nearer its 
prototype. There are only two genuine Shaph c el formations 
in Biblical Aramaic; viz., afttj and KiXittJ from atxi; see Kautzsch, 
Gr. § 35. 

16. i. "pfittjn parte, from hfflri, according to Kautzsch § 58, 
2e. M. has Ionian. The stem is a cognate of the Assyrian 
xtisaxxu "need, necessity", Tig. viii. 85; xisixtu, I. E. 52 
nr. 3, 27 a 19 . 

16. ii. bans "word" not Qar-Q, as it is pethegama in Syriac. 
It is a loanword from the Old Persian patigama('?), mod. Pers. 
paigham "message, word" 20 . In iv. 14, it means "decree, edict". 

17. ",n "if". All the versions, LXX, and V. misunder- 
stand the force of this particle and translate it "behold", as 
if it were the Heb. hsn, "n. In Biblical Aram, -n always means 
"if, whether". 

19. i. liniax of the KHlvib is more correct than lurvjs of the 
Q e re. The plural form agrees by attraction with the plural 
noun inssx. 

19. ii. renu: in "sevenfold"; P. Ex. xxii. 3; see Noldeke, 
Syr. Gr. § 241; Mand. Gr. p. 243. 

20. nvnvb "throw down"; cf. vi. 25; vii. 9. x£*i is prob- 
ably a cognate of the Assyr. ramfi "set, lay down", used gener- 

17 See Deutsche Lit. Zeitung, 1887, nr. 27, C. 968, and Kamphausen, 
pp. 21—2. 18 Shaph'el of ezebu "to save" = Heb. atS, Ar. 'azaba. 
19 Cf. rVirittSh, Ezra vii. 20. A synonym of xusaxxu is qahfull nm, V. R. 
11, 42 -3ef. 20 See Lagarde, Arm. St. § 1825. 

CHAPTER 111. 217 

ally of a dwelling; cf. Cyrus Cylinder, 23. Jt appears, how- 
over, V. R. 50, 45-6 in the sense of "overthrow". Ninnu 
means "foundation", II. R. 35, 44 ef. 

21. i. ins; and i^-i, passives like "fta and -"D, ii. 19, q. v. 

21. ii. "(imbmo is a doubtful word. LXX. translate "their 
shoes"; and V.: "their trousers", which is probably correct. 
The word may be the same as the mod. Persian sal/war 
"trousers", used also in Turkish 21 . The Targumic RbniD, how- 
ever, means "tunic". 

21. iii. ■prrifflitsB KHW) should be vowelled fif-pi^as 22 . The 
Q e re ■prrntfaB is probably more correct. The exact meaning cannot 
be determined 23 . The garment may have been a sort of shirt- 
tunic which fell over the trousers (?) 

21. iv. phntois, from which we have the Heb. S>n"D, occur- 
ring only 1 Chrou. xv. 17 used as parte, meaning "clothed". 
It may. mean "cloaks' 1 , indicating the long cloak-like outer 
garment, similar to the modern abba. Behrmann makes it a 
derivative from ban "to bind", -but this is extremely doubtful. 

22. i. *ipan from pbo; cf. Hoph. pan, vi. 24. 

22. ii. 8-na *i xn^ia, cf. vii. 9; also Job xviii. 5 and Assyr. 
sibat isati "flames of fire", K. 4361, c. i. 9, from sabdbu "burn", 
a synonym of samii; see AW. p. 637. The Syr. sabh "burn", 
is clearly a variation of the same stem 2i . The Arabic ^.w 
"burn", however, with ji, where we should expect to find ,*, 
may be a loanform from the Syriac 25 . 

23. yin^nbn, so Bar, Strack, Marti aud Ginsburg; see Kamp- 
hausen, p. 22. 

24. i. nin, arc. ley., appears in the Targums as xnn, Syr. 
(no2, Ar. sLj, under all of which is the idea "to be in confusion", 
seen in the cognate Heb. inn "desolation". 

24. ii. iWflirft. The context shows plainly that tins is 

21 Cf. Ar. Jljwwu, pi. "garment". - 2 Kainphausen, p. 22. 

23 See, however, Behrmann, Bevan and Levy NHWB. 2+ Barth, Etym. 
Stud. p. 50. 28 See, however, Bevan, p. 84; Behrmann, p. 23. 


intended to denote those who were in personal attendance on 
the king, possibly his counsellors (A. V.), or ministers. The 
term is most probably a Persian loanword ending in -bar, but 
its origin is obscure 26 . It is barely possible that we have 
here a later corruption of the Babylonian itbarn "friend, com- 
panion"; II. R. 28, 29e; 57-9; V. R. 42, 29f; but it is much 
more likely that the word has a Persian origin, like the ma- 
jority of obscure expressions in Dan. i.-vii. 

25. i. p^rra, intransitive Haph'el, as in iv. 34. Some texts, 
however, read the Pa c el T^rra as in iv. 26, which seems a 
preferable emendation 27 . 

25. ii. ban "injury"; so Kautzsch § 57a. It is undoubtedly 
cognate with the Assyrian xibiltu, "ruin, destruction 1 ', Sarg. 
Cyl. 4, from xabalu "destroy"; cf. Heb. ban, Job xxxiv. 31; 
Neh. i. 7. 

27. i. soi: o^ffl xb. xms is masculine here, but is usually 
employed as feminine. On the other hand, mi is construed 
here as fern., as may be seen from the verb ms. mi is al- 
ways masc, elsewhere, but it may be used as a feminine here 
on the analogy of the Heb. mi. Ar. rik is also feminine. 

27. ii. yimaiaa. The plural indicated by the KHKib is correct. 

28. ifffcs ixmnn "who trusted in him"; cf . bs yvn, common 
in T. This stem is clearly a cognate of the Assyrian raxani 
(pret. irxug) 28 which is also construed with eli; cf. V. R. 5, 
102: eli sutti anriiti ummdnia irxugu "my troops trusted in 
that dream"; cf. also Ar. raxaga "to be gracious". This stem 
does not occur at all in Syriac. 

29. bs-;, cf. v. 16, and see p. 204 on ii. 10. 

26 See v. Bohlen, Symbol, ad interp. s. cod. ex ling. Pers. p. 26, 
who suggests that it is a cognate of hamdavar, a theory refuted by 
Bevan, p. 85, n. 1. " Kautzsch, Gr. p. 58. M To be carefully 
distinguished from raxagu, pret. irxi^, "to overflow, flood"; cf. Heb. 

vm "to wash''. 



C. iii. 33 (3). Tn i-i as "from generation to generation". Several 
expositors have commented on this peculiar use of ds in the 
sense of "unto, during", e. g. "unto (during) generation and 
generation"", which is found, for example, vii. 2, at^s-DS, but 
in Hebrew only *P lxxii. 5. We find n», however, in precisely 
this construction *F c. 5; Is. xiii. 20, e. g. im "in is, and 
there can be no doubt that there was a connection in the 
Semitic mind between the ideas "unto" and "together with". 
Thus, in Assyr. adi "unto" frequently usurps the place of itti 
"together with"; as adi namkurrisumi, Tig. iii. 7; Asurn. i. 85, 
et passim. On the other hand itti does not occur in the sense 
of "unto" like the Heb. and Aram, ds as well as the Arabic *a. 

C. iv. 1 (4). i. waa. So Bar, but waa is better (Ginsburg 
and Marti). 

1 (4). ii. psn, an. ley. in Biblical Aramaic. It is most 
probably a Heb. loanword. 

1 (4). iii. iDibr-D"' i3sim\ For this use of the 

imperf. to express past action, see Bevan, p. 37. These 
imperfects are undoubtedly dependent on the perfect n^m, e. g. 
"I saw a dream, so that it terrified me", etc. 

1 (4). iv. rttesn. See on ii. 25, p. 207. 

5 (8). y^ria tj\ Q e re. Kautzsch reads *p*inx nsi (see Gr. 
§ 61, 3), following the KHhib. The difficulty is that the KHhib 
merely represents another pronunciation for the Q e re l and that 
■pltarprw cannot mean "last" or "at last". J. D. Michaelis 
most probably hit upon the correct rendering when he changed 
TSl to is"] reading "j^rifit nin and rendering: "and still another 
entered before me" ; viz., Daniel 2 . 

6 (9). cox "oppresses, troubles"; mi. ley. only in Esther 
i. 8 "compel". The stem is common in the Talmud. 

1 For references, see Kamphausen, p. 23. 2 Followed also by 
Bevan, p. 90. 


8 (11). wnm, also v. 17 (20), is commonly translated "its 
appearance"', as if from ntri; cf. the Heb. rwn, viii. 5 3 . As 
the word is parallel to iro*n "its height", we should expect it 
to mean "extent" 1 . Behrmann's suggestion, therefore, to read 
^'""j 4 * which would have this meaning seems to be the best 
idea. It is probable that the original text, from which the 
version of was made, had some such word; cf. his rendering 
to ilvtoq avxov "its size, expanse" 5 . 

9 (12). i. max "its fruit". This is probably the original 
form of the word which is a derivative from a stem 3SK "to 
spring, jump"; then, "sprout"; cf. Assyr. iribu "fruit" 6 , IV. R. 
57, 9 a. A cognate of this is Assyr. anabu "hare", e. g. "the 
jumping animal", I. R. Anp. iii. 135; Heb. ra:-ix, Ar. v»*i;f, with 
-i inserted for a resolution of the doubling (ZB. p. 13). The form 
in the Targum, therefore, is secondary with Dagesh forte comp. 
for assimilation of the -. The ' in ttnsx is, therefore, probably 
not for a resolution of the doubling, as if the word were from 
rnx which appears in Assyr. as quite a different stem; as, for 
example, in the word ebbu "bright, shining" and in the verb: 
belesu ubbiba "he polished his weapons", IV. R. 48, la. The 
Heb. nx "fresh verdure", Cant, vis 11 is a cognate of this 


w i- 

latter stem; cf. also n^nx and Ar. v«jl. 

9 (12). ii. -pts 7 "food"; cf also v. 18 and in Heb. Gen. 
xlv. 23; 2 Chr. xi. 23 and tr?M», Jcr. v. 8 "well nourished", 
from "pi; cf. "pTpn here. This stem appears in Assyr. as a 
reduplicated verb, zanmm "to support, care for"; cf. V. R. 
40, 5ef, where the word sdninu is a synonym of return U 
masqUum "food and drink". 

9 (12). iii. bban; orVr. ley. in Biblical Aramaic, tjneontracted 
I Lpli'els of reduplicated verbs occur very seldom in this 

8 See Kautzsch, § 61, 4b. * Generally used in T. as an adverb, 
but see T. Ex. iii. 3. r ' For full discussion of the various suggestions, 
<r Kampbausen, p. 24. ' Delitzsch, Prol. p. 114. 7 Cf. Nol- 
deke, Mand. Gr. p. 110, 3 on the prefix mi-. 


dialect. The ordinary causative of bba in T. is the meta- 
plastic Aph'el bi»K. 

9 (12). iv. The Q e re fyn*] } cf. v. 18, is unnecessary, but 
was undoubtedly suggested by the fact that IBS like Heb. mars 
is usually feminine. 

10 (13). "vs "messenger" (Heb. *px, Is. xviii. 2 with y-i). 
The LXX. have correctly ayyelog. &, however, renders UQ, 
keeping the Aramaic expression, and both A. and S. translate 
f-.yqriyoQog "a wakeful one", which was used later to denote a 
particular class of angels, e. g. the guardian spirits. 

11 (14). i. nnx "cut off", Aph. of iro, synonym of baa 
T. W i. 3, is cognate with the Mishnic lias, Ar. y& and the 
Assyr. nasaru (sU) "to diminish, cut off"; cf. AW. p. 487. 

11 (14). ii. rvo "scatter", cf. xi. 24 wj f lxviii. 31 (Ti). 
ininnn is a Hebraism for ifiirnnn, as in r. 18; see Kamphausen, 
p. 24. 

12 (15). i. i|33> for -ijs?; also vv. 20-3, following the Syriac; 
cf. Kautzsch, Gr. § 59, c. 

12 (15). ii. sn»s% also v. 20; cf. v. 21. sna is possibly the 
same stem as we find in the Heb. saxx, Assyr. Qubbu "finger 11 , 
e. g. "the dipping member" (?). We may compare Assyr, gebu 
"to dye", found for example, in the derivative gebutum "tinctio, 
immersio", II. R. 30, 32 f.; IV. R. 7, 41b. For gibu "to wish", 
see below on v. 14. 

13 (1(>). i. n~aV "his intelligence 11 , lb in Heb. is frequently 
used for the seat of intelligence; cf. 1 Kings x. 2; Eccles. 
vii. 22. Libbu in Assyr. also means "will, desire 11 , as, for ex- 
ample, in the well known expression M la libbi Hani "against 
the will of the gods" 1 , Khors. 124. 

13 (10). ii. KvnaK p. The Q e rc xiuax is more correct (see 
Kamphausen, Dan. p. 25). The KHhlb is probably a Hebraism. 

13 (16). iii. pai, used impersonally for the passive. For the 
connection of a change of heart or mind with insanity, cf. in 
Assyr. umnna fcnli "1 will change thy understanding , e. g. 
/make thee mad", IV. R. 57, C. iii. 33; A§ur t&mu usainiina 


"A. deprived him of understanding", V. R. 8, 6; also Asurb. 
Sm. 119, 23. In Syriac \±1±. means "a lunatic". 

14 (17). i. mm is is undoubtedly a scribal error for by 
wan; of. Kautzsch, Gr. § 69, 10, Kamphausen, p. 25 and Hitzig, 
p. 65, etc. 

14 (17). ii. MSi from so* "to wish"; also v. 22 (25) and 
vii. 19; cf. Assyr. cibii "to wish", I. R. Sarg. Cvl. 42, from 
which the derivatives tegbttu "wish"; gibutu "desire"; cf. Jensen, 
ZK. ii. pp. 26-7. (JiMdu is exactly the same form as wa = 
nws, vi. 18. 

14 (17). iii. cnrasN with the Hebrew plural ending (cf. vii. 
10, KHMb, and Ezra iv. 13) is undoubtedly a scribal error; 
see Kautzsch, § 51, 2. 

14 (17). iv. !-r^s>. The KHMb should be pronounced c alaih; 
see Kamphausen, p. 25. 

15 (18). awbn ran. "This dream I have seen"; not, "this 
is the dream which I have seen". The demonstrative pronoun 
precedes the noun, as in Ezra v. 4, and the relative "h is 
omitted here. 

10 (19). i. mn nsias. nana "a short time", like Wi in Ex. 
xxxiii. 5, translated by row in T. Onk 8 . The word is cognate 
with the Assyr. sattu "period of time" 9 . The meaning "hour", 
which appears in later Hebrew and Aramaic, is undoubtedly 
secondary 10 . 

1(> (19). ii. -bnn\ Bevan 11 calls attention to the absence 
of the energetic infix -in- before the suffix in this form. This 
is more the custom of the Eastern Aramaic dialects, but the 
same peculiarity is seen in the W. Aramaic Tema Inscription 
in the form WW 12 . 

19 (22). msi must certainly be pointed WT\. The Qfre nan 
would be 3 p. fern. sg. and a wrong form at that, for it would 

" See p. 86. » Delitzsch, Prol. pp. 39 ft.; AW. p. 632. 10 Cf. 
Levy, Neuhebr. WOrterbucb. ll Dan. p. 93. i - Cited Behrmann, 
Dan. p. 28. 


then have to bo ran, as it actually occurs in this verse. This 
is of course a textual error due to carelessness 13 . 

20 (33). rnn -hi. For this construction of "H, cf. ii. 41; 43. 

21 (24). n^aa, K ,: tJub, is clearly an error. The QTS noa 
is correct. Sec Kautzsch § 47, g, 1, a. 

22 (25). i. "pTiB. The participle used for the Passive, -na, 
which occurs also vv. 29-30 and v. 21, as well as in Heb. 
*F xix. 13; xxvii. 15, is cognate with the Assyrian tarddu "drive 
away 1 '; cf. ina ziimrisu litrud "from his body may he drive 
it", IV. R. 15, 27 b, et passim. 

22 (25). ii. rwA. See above, p. 205 on ii. 20. 

22 (25). iii. "pastax For d»B, see on iii. i. The verb D$a 
"to feed" occurs also iv. 29; v. 21. This meaning is not found 
in Assyrian except in the substantive timtum = bubutum "food, 
nourishment", II. R. 43, 12 d. 

22 (25). iv. stiasx is used here collectively for "mankind", 
like disk in Hebrew ; cf ., however, ttJiaa in *P viii. 5 and ttilSK p 
in '*F cxliv. 3. 

24 (27). i. *,nb "therefore", see above on ii. 9. 

24 (27). ii. ^h-Q "my counsel"; cf. in Heb. 7$jb*j in the 
Niph., Neh. v. 7, and the Assyr. milku "decision, coimsel": 
la issdkemu milku "no decision was taken", I. R. Rammannir. 6b. 
It is highly probable that the Semitic word for "king, prince' 1 '', 
Aram. 8t3f>a, Heb. r^a, Ar. <*jJLe, Assyr. malku, is a derivative 
from this stem and originally meant "councillor 11 , dating from 
the early nomadic time when the leader of the horde was the 
oldest man of milku. 

24 (27). iii. p-is "break off" seems to be correct here, as 
in Gen. xxvii. 40 and in Aboth iii. 5, where it is used of 
breaking or casting off a yoke. Some commentators, follow- 
ing and V., render this by "redeem", a meaning seen, for 
ex., l Fcxxxvi. 24; also in yip-is "redemption", T. Nu. iii. 46-8. 

18 Kamphausen, p. 25. 


It cannot possibly mean "expiate sins", however, which would 
be the accessary application in this passage of Daniel. 

24 (27). iv. ^rM? (Bar) is better than ~rn??; see Kamp- 
hauscn, p. 25. The singular is probably xn^r; absol. xrr. 

24 (27). v. •-:".'- cf. Kautzsch § 15, a; 57, a/?, from sing. 
iai; cf. Heb. fi^as, f ix. 13; x. 12, xviii. 28, of which the 
Aram, word is no doubt an imitation. 

24 (27). vi. "pyibiyfc rw-is xinn -p. ronx can only be a deri- 
vative from -is "to be long", Heb. ?£ist "long". Ewald's sub- 
stitution here of the punctuation nrix u (Is. Ivii. 8) "healing" 
is not satisfactory, because fo^x "length, duration" is estab- 
lished by Dan. vii. 12 15 . 

24 (27). vii. "jrvftffl probably means "prosperity" and is not 
to be pointed tjnsfcffl "sins" 16 . It can certainly have no connection . 
with the Assyr. saldtu "to rule", with a as Meinhold suggests. 
He cites the form salutu, which has not been found in the 
inscriptions ! 

27 (30). i. nrnsa, so Ben-Asher, but some Mss. "n. Ben 
Naphtali suggested nn^Da which is certainly correct; see Kautzsch 
§ 15, e. 

27 (30). ii. q£n; cf. q'pn in the Received Text, and also in 
ii. 37, which would seem a more natural reading here. cjipn, 
however, is generally considered to be correct; cf. Kamphausen, 
p. 26; Bevan, p. 95, etc. 


28 (31). db; cf. Arabic *j. The n here is probably the 
indication of an original nasalized final vowel 17 . The Assyrian 
pu "mouth" which appears without final m is similar in this 
respect to the Heb. ns and the Arabic form '&&*S. 

30 (33). i. yfiwi from "ittjs; cf. Heb. "iiw and Assyr. nasru 
"the great vulture" which is called aSarid iggurdti "the leader 
of the birds", 1. \l. Senn. iii. 68. 

14 So Gr. Ven. i«TQti«. lt In this passage, Gr. Ven. translates 
correctly by /taxog (Doric for fiijxoq) "length". ,a So P. ,T Againsl 
Barth, ZDMG. sli, pp. 633 ff., who sees an original stem ias>. 


30 (33). ii. ^rmsa, from iBp, is used also of the hoofs of 
quadrupeds, vii. 19; cf. Heb. ftfes, Deut. xxi. 12, of the human 
finger nail, and Assyr. gitpru, of the human nail pressed on a 
seal, III. R. 48, nr. 4, 1 and of lions' claws V. R. 47, 21b. 

31 (34). i. twa, incorrect punctuation for rz^z. See Kautzsch, 
§ 9, 4, c. 

31 (34). ii. xvbv ^nb; cf. xii. 7, oVisn *n. 

32 (35). i. rhz should be nbz. Aram. nb-xb, however, cannot 
possibly be regarded as a substantive meaning "nothing" 18 . It 
must be construed with the following -pr^-m, e. g. "pmirn xbz 
"like those of no account"; cf. the Hebrew idiom J^-sb "one 
who is not a man", e. g. a supernatural being, Is. xxxi. 8; also 
in Assyr. M In-libhi Hani, Khors. 124, Avherc la-libbi means 
"that which is against the desire". 

32 (35). ii. irm nnw "smite his hand", e.g. "hinder him": 
cf. At. Jo J^e. ov^- 

33 (36). roprn "I was established" is correct. If the reading 
roprn, found in most Mss., be adopted, it would be necessary 
with Marti to change bv to "fes, and to read nsprn ^msb^ ^bsi 
"and on me (for me) my kingdom was established"; cf. Kamp- 
hausen, p. 26. 

34 (37). i. Dana is a Hebraism. 
34 (37). ii. pobn^. See on iii. 25. 


1. arte ins,, cf. txvo-o ntt», Eccles. x. 19; Gen. xxi. 8. 

2. i. irran osan "at the conuuand of the wine"; see p. 105 
and on iii. 10, p. 214. 

2. ii. 13x2b. -jaw is probably a noun-form with prefixed o from 
a stem Visr-^sk, like the Assyr. uniitu "vessel, furniture" 
Senn. vi. 57 and the Heb. n*5R "ship". 

18 So and P. 

Prin ce ,TDaniel. 1"> 


3. bsto, "the legitimate wife", — see *¥ xlv. 10, used in Neh. 
ii. 6, of the queen. According to Bar Ali (cf. Payne Smith, 
Thesaurus, p. 542, under belatlu, Venus) the star Venus was 
called by the Babylonians &gal wadilbat. bxsi was evidently 
a synonym, therefore, of brldthi = beltu, "Lady", a name of 
I star. 

Hesychius also gives the form JsXecpaT, (i. e. Dilbat), as the 
Babylonian name of Istar-Venus as the morning star. Dilbat 
seems to mean "the announcer", i. e. of morning or evening. 
See II. R. 7, 37, g. h. ; dilbat = nabu "to tell, announce". In 
II. R. 48. 51, the star Dilbat is mentioned in the same paragraph 
with Sin (the moon) and Samas (the sun). For the goddess 
Istar in her double capacity of morning and evening star, see 
Delitzseh-Murdter, Gcschichte, p. 29, and for the name of the 
place Dilbat, cf. Delitzsch, Paradies, p. 119. 

5. i. ips3— V. appariiermit. The Q e re rtpss is unnecessary, 
nor is there any need of reading )pSi fern, pi., according to an 
old codex 1 . The Semitic construction does not require that 
the verb and subject should agree. As to the possible survival 
of a feminine pi. in Hebrew, see J. P. Peters, Hebraica, hi., 
nr. 2. 111. That u and a were respectively the masculine and 
feminine third person pi. endings of the perfect is quite prob- 
able, if the existence of a perfect in primitive Semitic be granted. 
More than this it is very difficult to assert. We may compare 
in this connection the remarks of Dr. Cyrus Adler, Hebraica, 
iii. p. 268. Sec also p. 238 on vii. 8. 

5. ii. wnzrfis, «Vr«i Xeyo/nsvor. Derivation uncertain. Syriac 
nevrastd "flame, lantern", from which the denominative ethnevras 
'illuminate"; Arabic, nibras. The Jerusalem (Jemara translates 
it by D-HErab. According to Ibn Ezra, KFnaiOJ is the synonym 
of rvvo?, used of the great branching candlestick of the 
Tabernacle 2 . The Targum to Zephaniah i. 12, translates -: 

1 118 K, cf. Bertholdt, p. 368, n. 5. 2 See Buxtorf. Lexicon, 
c. 1290 and Ex. xxv. Slff.; 1 Kings vii. 49. etc. 


by xmrc:. All authorities seem agreed that the word is 
of foreign origin. Of. Bickell, Ephr. Garni. Nisib. 53, where 
a derivation from the Sanskrit ni -j- hhrag*, "illuminate" is 
suggested. This is as unsatisfactory as the attempt of Bern- 
stein, Lexicon, to derive it from "lSS, shine, and xrrx, fire, 
or that of Sa'adia from xnd-'-c—i: — light that shines through 
all the year. A Persian derivation (Frankol, Fremdworter p. 96) 
is hardly admissible, because the original Persian word has yet 
to be found. That the Arabic form nibras belongs to the older 
language is seen from Nab. 27, 21; Jakut. iv. 737, 7. No 
satisfactory etymology seems possible at present. 

5. iii. xii; — "plaster, lime"; cf. Buxtorf, Lexicon, col. 425, 
for the Rabbinical definition : -nffiBari rp-ip "pa *iia, species terra'' 
denigrantis. The word is probably cognate with Assyrian, cpru, 
"pitch, mortar"; cf. Haupt, Nimrod Epos, 137, 1. 66, — (the 
Deluge) attabak ana qiri "I poured out for caulking", or 
"pitching". The ideogram which is found in this passage with 
variant Jci-i-ri is explained in the syllabary S b 94. There is 
probably some connection with the Arabic ols "pitch", accord- 
ing to the theory of Haupt in Schrader\s KAT. 2 , p. 516, in 
spite of Jensen's doubt as to the meaning of the word 
(Kosmologie, p. 410). Lagarde connects it with Turkish, Ml, 
"fuller's earth" (?). 

5. iv. bro "wall", from x*]?rs, cf. Ezra v. 8, is cognate with 
the Assyrian hutallu "side" Senn. vi. 28; I. R. 44, 55, etc. 

6. i. imn, see on ii. 31, p. 208. 

6. ii. "inlaw. The termination has the force of a dative, as 
already Kranichfeld saw (Dan. p. 217). It is not the use of 
the suffix to express the pronominal ending and the preposition, 
as Kautzsch thought, (Gr. § 89, 2, as in v. 9 iJV&s; also vii. 28), 
nor is it reflexive (Lengerke, Dan. p. 248). The use of the 
suffix to express the dative relation occurs in Assyrian in such 

3 Also Belirrnann, p. 32. 


a connection as ASKT. p. 80, 18: ina isinni saknus "at the 
feast made for Mm" ; probably also op. cit. p. 80, 14: Adar 
sarru warn §a a bam ana ruqetim appa usalbinusii "Adar the 
king, the sou, before whom his father makes them worship far 
and wide". It is difficult to know if the suffix has a real 
dative force in cases like amatum ubdkhi, IV. E. 30, 7, 
"I made the word come to thee"; ina bUi d rriibm, ASKT. 
p. 93, 21, "may it not come into the house to him"; op. cit. 
p. 81, 14. liimmidsu "may I erect to him", etc. 

6. iii. nsin. xnn "the lower part of the back", cf. Heb. 
n^n. See ZDMG. xl. p. 741. 

7. i. rvs?", from bbv for f&SSi. See on vi. 15, *>)?»». 

7. ii. soia-i&t, Assyr. argamannn Asurn. i. 88; c. iii. 68; "the 
darker purple scarlet" as opposed to takiltu, nb:n "the lighter 
purple red". Compare in this connection, Zehnpfund in BA. 
i. p. 507. on the different sorts of purple. 

7. iii. x=-:-r;, var. XDisr, may be the same word as the Greek 
uavid%r]Q to which Polvbius, II. 31, refers as a Gallic ornament: 
covto d'eari xQtoorv ipslhov o cpogovoi 7ieoi rag %€1q<xq ymI 
tov tqccxTjIov o\ ralaxai. Theodotion's translation has here 
b [xavictMjS b ZQvaoiQ. The word is probably originally Persian 4 . 

7. iv. -nsr, (in w. 16, 29 xnbn). The ordinary form of the 
Aramaic numeral is irrtn, cf. Daniel ii. 39. Hitzig (Daniel 
p. 81) read here -rbn in order to connect it with xriVn, but 
the form -nbr can be an adjectival formation meaning "the 
t Iii rd", like the Hebrew -i-*;r "a third part", Num. xv. 6; Ezek. 
v. 12. xnbn would then have to be considered as an abnormal 
st. emphat. of an absolute ^rnbn (Kautzsch, |>. 121). Bevan's 
idea is that sipibpi may be the Aramaic equivalent of the Arabic 
ath-thiUh "every third day", and that -nbr* in this verse may 
be an error due to a scribe who. not understanding xnirr, read 
ipfcn "third" (^r his Commentary, p. 102). Such a view seems 

4 See Bevan, p. !•»!. 


highly improbable, as it would imply the interpretation that 
the reader of the mysterious writing should reign over the 
kingdom on alternate days with the king himself! 

9. 'pttjanaja. Cf. Assyrian Sdbasu "rage"; Asurb. c. iv. 88; e. 
vi. 108, and the substantive Hbsu, Asurn. ii. 106. 

12. irs-: and k*tcjo. It is simpler, in agreement with Bertholdt, 
Daniel, p. 378, n. 15, and Kautzsch, op. cit., § 40, rem. 1, to 
read "HtiSra and x-- : :, infinitives, following V. : Quia spiritus 
amplior . . . . et interpretatio somnorum et ostensio secretarum 
ct solatia Ugatorutn mvenfae sunt in eo. Bar and Delitzsch, 
however, read ittJBn and snttja (Liber Dan. p. 1 1) as participles, 
ef. Q: on 7tvEVf.ia tzXelgtov ev avroj %<xi (pqovrfiig dvvsffig 
iv ctv%(7) ovyy.Qtvior Ivvnvia /.at avayyBXtov y.Qatoif.(sra /mi 
Ivojv avvdeaf.(Ovg. It should be noticed that if iibbb be read, 
this is the sole instance of the Pael of this stem in Biblical 
Aramaic. See Kautzsch, op. cit., p. 65, rem. 1. 

13. "i Kin nn:x. This is not necessarily a question; sec 
above p. 110. 

10. bmn; see on ii. 10, p. 204. 

17. ^atas, but roTa? ii. 6. Both readings may be correct 5 . 

18. aois nrux "Thou O King". This is a nom. absolute 
pointing forward to the suffix of "jinx. See ii. 29. 

19. i. -psw from |/""tt, "to tremble". The same stem is seen 
in the Assyrian su, "storm, bird of the storm"; see Zimmcrn, 
ZB. p. 94. 

19. ii. ■'n'ralp 'ja "pirn "fearing before him"; cf. Assyr. lapau 
esriti . . . aplaxma "J reverenced (before) the shrines", Asurb. 
c. x. 78; also I. R. 11. 14, etc. 

19. hi. &m». Ptc.Haph < elofjrn"to live". The older authorities 
considered it the participle of wra "to strike", evidently reading 
here strra ,; . Thus, translated mt ovg rifiovleto avrbg trvrtrev, 
while V. has percutiebat. Tt is now generally accepted, how- 

B See Kaniphausen, p. 28. ' xrra still appears in Halm's Van der 
Hooght edition of the O. T. 1896. 


ever, that xn-c is correct and that this is the participle of s;n 
"to live" as indeed the context plainly shows 7 . For this form 
xrnc of the Haph'el ptc. of &ori, we may compare the Syriac 
Aph c el ax'/, with the participle maxe. Such forms are based 
on the analogy of the verbs medice geminatce. Cf. Noldeke, 
Syr. Gr., § 183, and the Aph c el abez, parte, mabez, from the 
stem ym. wrra is not, therefore, to be considered as repre- 
senting an original &Ori», as Kantzsch thought (op. cit. p. 29) 8 . 
Such an analogy between sen and the stems medice geminatce 
found in the imperfect and in the Aph c el of the verb in Syriac, 
is easily understood when it is remembered that the primitive 
form of &m is l^n (xayiwa — intransitive) a trace of which is 
still found in the Arabic ( j!«j^». "animal", and in the Aramaic 
Mryprj. This th became naturally "^n, which was itself a form 
ss'. It is interesting to note here that Syriac Aph'el forms 
like abez, parte, mdbez, of "~ verbs are in their turn based on 
the analogy of verbs is. Thus, the Aph'el of Syriac n e faq is 
appeq, parte, mappeq. For analogy in the Semitic languages, 
in general, cf. Huizinga, Dissertation, Analogy in the Semitic 
Languages, Baltimore, 1891. 

20. i. D"i is a perfect passive, a form like the Heb. in- 
transitive rra. 

20. ii. Np"o, from &00-0, vii. 9; cf. Heb. XS3, Assyr. kussu. 
It is possible that the word has a non- Semitic origin, as 
the Sumerian form is guza. The n which appears in Aram. 
sto-o, Ncma and Phoen. d^d-o was probably inserted to compen- 
sate for the resolution of the doubled o. A similar phenomenon 

is seen in Assyr. annabu "hare", Heb. rftyw; Ar. v_*jJ and 
perhaps in xattu "sceptre", Heb. "J"in 9 . 

20. iii. snpn, read Phpi parallel with nrrobis. So P. 
and V. 

7 See Bertholdt, Dan. p. 362,19; Havernick, p. 196 etc. 8 Cf. 
Noldeke, GGA. 1884, p. 1018. 9 ZB. p. 13 (Haupt). See on roa«, 
iv. 9, i. p. 220. 


21. ■''jttJ. This reading as a passive like ~"~- is possible 
and, moreover, is indicated as the correct one by the old 
translators; sd6frt r Vers. Mass. redslrai, V. position est, 
P. esPive. See also Lengerke, Daniel, p. 259; Hitzig, Daniel, 
p. 84. Kautzsch, op. tit., p. 81, however, reads here l^ttj, a 
third pers. pi. Pa'il, unnecessarily transferring the l from the 
following word asi 10 . For the use of this verb n vci with the 
preposition or, cf. P. St. John v. 18, and in Hebrew the con- 
struction D" bviv: in 'F xxviii. 1; l F cxliii. 7. In Hebrew the 
construction a irittj is also found; cf. Xxviii. 34. A precisely 
equivalent usage is that of the Assyrian emu Lhna; for which 
see AL. 3 Deluge, p. 183. 

25. •po'is^ bpn io-a xrc. Clermont Ganneau was the first to 
understand the real meaning of x:^3, bpr. and DIB 11 . During 
an epigraphic mission to the British Museum in 1878, he found 
that the three letters on certain half mina weights which had 
previously been read fflip were in reality uns paras "half. As 
the weight bearing the inscription was equal to that of half 
of a light mina, he concluded that una must mean "half mina" 1 ' 2 . 
This discovery led him to decide that, on the set of Ninevitic 
weights engraved with letters approaching in form to the 
Aramaic characters, the three words x:-: "mina", 5»pU3 "shekel" 
and fis "half mina" were to be found and that these names 
might correspond to the three chief words in the mysterious 
sentence in Dan. v. The general conclusion at which he 
arrived was that the two extreme and essential terms of the 
phrase in Daniel are two names of weights, of which one 
is double the other, placed in relation by a third middle 
term which is either a third name of weight, that of shekel, 
or the verb "to weigh" from which the name of shekel is 

10 See, however, Kamphausen, p. 28. n JA. Ser. viii. v. 1 pp. 36 ft'. 
12 Abr. Geiger remarked in an explanation of a Mishnic passage in 
ZDMG. xxi. pp. 467 ff. that the Tosephta regarded dib in the phrase 
D1B1 I - "- n:r as "a half mina 1 * 


This attempt of Gauneau was followed by an admirable 
paper published ZA. i. p. 414-418, by Theodor Noldeke. 
Noldeke accepted Ganneau's discovery that the phrase in Daniel 
contains names of weights, but clearly saw in ipn the shekel. 
He regarded nm sob as a repetition of the same word and 
accordingly suggested the translation "a mina, a mina, a shekel 
and half minas". 

A third attempt to explain the enigma was made in 1887 
by Georg Hoffmann of Kiel who differed from Noldeke only 
in suggesting that bpr. "shekel" might be in apposition to >»■=, 
explaining ^pn soe as "a mina in shekel pieces". 

It does not seem necessary, however, to regard &»« x:« as an 
accidental repetition of the same word. As Noldeke himself 
noticed, but did not adopt in his interpretation, the first nm 
may be regarded as a passive participle of the verb soa "to 
count, to allot". In this case the Assyrian original would have 
been mam 13 . The verb "to count" is used in this sense also in 
Is. lxv. 12: a'nrA dsnx irvsai "and I will allot you to the sword"; 
W cxlvii. 4: d-03i:& -isdt2 hiia "he fixes the number of the 

The second sop seems to be the absolute of n^i-a mina (Heb. 

13 See, however, in this connection. Peters, JBL. xv. pp. 115 — 7. 
Passives with internal vowel change have not been lost in Assyr- 
ian, but are not developed. The active and passive participles are 
not yet sharply distinguished, the difference being merely arbitrary. 
For examples of the passive participle, cf. the frequent kima labirisu 
satir "written like its original", and sapux eprn "dust is spread". See 
Haupt, JKAS. 1878, p. 244. We may compare in this connection the 
frequent passive meaning of the intensive permansive. See ZB. p. 11. 
The Assyrian permansive must be considered the prototype of the 
common Semitic perfect, as there are no evidences that Assyrian once 
possessed and then lost its perfect. J. A. Knudtzon in the ZA. vii. 
p. 48 (April, 1892), goes too far, however, in demanding a common 
name for both the permansive and perfect, as they are by no means 
fully identical. The Assyrian permansive is not a stereotyped tense 
like the ordinary Semitic perfect, as the language can use any noun 
or adjective in a permansive sense by suffixing the pronominal endings. 
See in this connection Haupt. loc. cit., p. 24i>. 


nra; Assyr. manu), which is of course a derivative from x:-: 
"to count". 

^pn is the absolute of xb|rr "shekel" (Heb. bpr ; Assyr. siqlu u ). 

The last word -po-is may be a plural of ens-ens "half mina", 
in which case it should be puuetuated trtns. The Assyrian 
equivalent of this word would be parsn "part", from pardsu 
"to separate" 15 . Parsu means technically "a section of a 
chapter", or "paragraph" 16 . 

Combining then these words as in the Aramaic of Daniel, 
the supposed Babylonian original would be : — mam manu siqlu 
u parsdni. 

Both the Greek and Latin versions, in the reproduction of 
the mysterious sentence, read only the three words mane, tekel, 
peres, omitting one mene and giving parsin in the singular form 
peres. This reading may have been due to the influence of 
vv. 26-28, where only a single mene and the singular form 
peres are mentioned with tekel as being strictly necessary to 
the interpretation. P. is the only version which has kept the 
text intact: mane m e nd Pqel iv e pharsln. 

It is interesting to notice that one version of the LXX., in 
disagreement in this point with the version of Theodotion, has 
transferred the words to v. 5 and changes their order, reading 
mene, peres, tekel. It seems possible that the copyist of the 
original manuscript from which this translation was made 
understood the real meaning of the words as names of weights 
and without seeing their special application to this passage, 
felt the necessity of a regularly decreasing enumeration l7 . The 
LXX., however, translate the three words: "numbered, taken 
away, weighed". 

14 Cf. Meissner, ZA. vii. p. 20; Altbabylonisches Privatrecht, p. 93; 
Delitzsch, AW. p. 44 n. 4, and Lehrnann in a metrological paper in Ver- 
handlungen d. Berliner Anthropologischen Gesellschaft, 1891, p. 518, n. 1. 
16 Pardsu "separate" in Asurb. ix. 46; "check, stop", Senn. vi. 14, IV. R. 
57, 7a; "quarrel" in IV. R. 58, 22; "alienate", Asurb. iii. 83. J6 Bab. 
Chronicle vi. 39. '" Cf. Hebraica iii. nr. 2. p. 36, n. 1 (Ganneaui. 


30. nst'wsbn. So Bar. Cf. also vii. 1; viii. 1. The correct 
reading is of course -axubn, as in v. 1; 22; 29. 


3. i. nsj" is ct7ia£ Xeyo/.ievov in Biblical Aramaic, but is used 
for "above" in Nabatseau; cf. Euting, Nab. Inschr. p. 28. ya 
here means "than"; "higher than"; cf. )n -jcnx, ii. 39. 

3. ii. "paio, also in w. 5; 7; 8, occurs in T. in the sing. 
Tpo. It is probably a loanword from some Persian derivative 
of sar "head" and means "a chief". Behrmann, however, con- 
siders it to be Semitic 1 . The word is used in T. to translate 
01-1B12; "writers" or overseers"; cf. Ex. v. 6, etc. The author 
of Daniel seems to have used ',"0*10 in the sense of "general 
overseers" or "ministers". 

3. iii. xaSB •psni "give account". For dsu "account", 

cf. Ezra v. 5 (see above pp. 214-5 for other meanings). The 
construction with irr is unusual; cf., however, T. Prov. xxvi. 16. 

3. iv. p;: "injured"; cf. Heb. p« "injury", Esther vii. 4. The 
Assyr. stem nazdqu "injure" is an exact cognate with this root; 
cf. the derivatives niziqtu, V. R. 31, 29 gh and nazdqu "injury", 
in. R. 65, 15; 32 a. 

4. rrUBS is a passive participle from httW "think", used only 
here in Biblical Aramaic. Compare, however, mB?rp, Jon. i. 6 
and rami:?, "thought", Job xii. 5 2 . 

5. i. t&$ "cause, pretext"; anaS, leyo^evov; only in vv. 5-6. 
This is an exact synonym of airia in the N. T. The word 
is construed here as the object of nnsiun^, which is dependent 
on the preceding "psa. 

5. ii. nsri "concerning", is in vii. 25 means "against"; cf. 
in Heb. Dt. xxxi. 26. The ordinary form of the preposition 
in Aramaic is ts. 

1 Dan. p. 38. 2 Noldeke, GGA. 1884, p. 1019; Syr. Gr. § 280. 

( iiaitki; vi. 235 

6. rn here means "religion"; cf. vii. 25 and sec on ii. 13, 
p. 67. 

7. to iioanh. For this use of bs for b (Heb. bx), cf. ii. 24. 
The same usage prevailed hi later Hebrew; cf. Jer. xxvi. 16. 

8. i. soba o-ip wS^ip? "to establish a royal decree or statute". 
So ©. D'p is clearly a construct dependent on xzb-o, which 
is used adjectivally as in ^bz yatk f v. 13. The Masoretic 
punctuation, which necessitates the difficult rendering "that 
the king should establish a statute" is probably incorrect 3 . 

8. ii. ion "prohibition"; cf. n&x, Nu. xxx. 13. 

8. iii. aa 3 emph. gas "pit"; cf. Heb. n;> "cistern"; Assyr. 
(jubbu "well" Asb. viii. 102. ns is used in T. as the equivalent 
of Heb. -na. 

8. iv. xni^x, pi. of rrnx, vii. 4. A singular form correspond- 
ing to this plural is given by Merx, Chrestomathia Targumica, 
p. 172, e. g. ni^-ix. 

11. rtfi naip -p, cf. Ezra v. 11. 

14. 1*1 is used here four times; cf. ii. 25 and see Kamp- 
hausen, p. 29. 

15. i. ^irlb'j laaa "displeased him". With bs like br -ibsj "please", 
iv. 34. ©K3 in Heb. means "to be bad" especially with respect 
to smell and is cognate with Ar. ,j*ob and Assyr. bu'usu "to 
cause to stink", V. R. 45 c. iii. 7; cf. bi'su "stinking, bad", 
II. R. 44, 12 cd. 

15. ii. ba ob is practically synonymous with bsh da; cf. 
Heb. ab diir, 1 Sam. ix. 20. ba, which does not occur else- 
where hi Jewish Aramaic, is undoubtedlv a cognate of Ar. 
5 , - 
Jb "heart". 

15. iii. ibsa. So Bar, following M., but see Kautzsch, Gr. 
§ 60, 3 b. It should be *]»»». The word, which is a derivative 
of bbs>, was probably originally *^-g and the pathach became 
seghol before 9 like nbyrt for nbrn, v. 7 4 . 

3 So Hitzig, Rosenniiiller and Meinhold. * Noldeke, GGA. 1887, 
p. 1020 and Bevan, p. Ill, 


15. iv. -*-r~-z from "nir, from which ^JTOH ''rebellion'', Ezra 
iv. 15, occurs also as bltt} 5 . A similar interchange of ~ and 
\> is seen in the later Persian form Babiru for Babilu "Babylon". 

17. N-i-nrc. A derivative from th "revolve". That it must 
mean "continually" is seen from T. Nu. xxviii. 6, where it is 
the equivalent of Heb. linn. It can have no connection with 
tub, as Kautzsch thought 6 . 

18. i. rniTHri. A passive perfect Haph'el, as in iii. 13. 

18. ii. For the un- Aramaic form tvato, read npb, but not 
2>lene n^b 7 ; cf. eh, v. 20. 

19. i. rna na "spent the night in a state of fasting". r;-j, 
which is retained by P., although it does not occur at all in 
Syriac, is a form like nsp from a stem sou "to roll, spin", 
generally found in the Aph c el; cf. in Heb. lira, Ex. xxxv. 25-C 
The Assyrian cognate is tamii, IV. R. 8, 28-9 b. The meaning 
"fasting", found here in Daniel seems to have developed from 
the idea of the contraction of the intestines from hunger, e. g. 
convolutus, scl. visceribus*. 

19. ii. "jim, from *WW. The meaning is not clear. Q and 
P. translate "food"; the Rabbinical commentators render it 
"musical instruments of percussion", as if from xm "push, 
thrust". Others consider that it means "concubines", deriving 
it from the same stem. This translation is probably correct, 
but the word should be read ):ub (so Marti). 

19. iii. writes ma nrottj. See on ii. 1. 

20. ssosnsiB NhM. It is probable that neither expression 

is a gloss 9 , but that KiiM supplements and intensifies the more 
general Nis"isir. 

22. w Hm; Heb. bx -iax 

23. lai "purity"; cf. Heb. rot; Assyr. zaM in me attalxu 
■id izakhu "the waters which I disturbed are not pure", K. 
257, Obv. 25-6; also adj. zaku "pure, clear, free". 

" Noldeke, ZDMG. xl. p. 735. B Gr. § 60, nr. 6. 7 Kautzsch, 
Gr. § 45, 1, d. R So Behrmann. p. 42. • S.v Kuniphausen, p. 30. 


24. i. "wis aa». For hv see above on w. 15. ^n-j seems 
to be formed on the analogy of ma. The regular stem is 
ma and not ax». 

24. ii. npojn resolution of n^sri (cf. nbssn, iv. 3), for an 
original npbon; cf. iii. 22. 

25. rv>S*iN "bottom", from s-ix, ii. 39. 

29. n^sn is intransitive here as in Ezra v. 8. In iii. 30, 
however, it is transitive. 


1. ybn laso, cf. V cxix. 160: -pan tt»e\ 

2. i. nx, only in this chapter. The ordinary form is ipx; 
see v. 8 and on ii. 31. 

2. ii. itfab ess*. See on iii. 33 (iv. 3). 

2. iii. "jmira, from ma, is probably transitive "stirring up the 
great sea", as in T. Gen. xxi. 10: pnsi ds xanp m^i "he will 
stir up war with Isaac" \. 

4. i. -(iQa, from qa "wing", cf. T. Job xxxix. 13 sois, from 
q-n "fly", Ar. Jib. 2 . The Assyrian gappu "wing", TV. R. 
16, 65-6 is a. cognate of this word. 

4. ii. n-o-ipn, a regular Aramaic Hopn al form ; cf . Kautzsch 
§ 45, 3; 5. 

5. i. a^r "bear"; cf. Heb. a"n. The Assyr. dabu "hog", al- 
though not from precisely the same stem, may be a cognate; 
Senn. Const, i. 35. 

5. ii. rvo-ipfi must be changed to the Hophal r^pt} as in 
v. 4: "and it was raised up". See Kautzsch §45, 3; 5 and 
Kamphausen, p. 31. 

(J. i. nna. So Bar. Better nrx-; see Kamphausen loc. tit. 

6. ii. 1T23 "leopard"; Heb. "raa, Ar. j+j, Assyr. nimru, IV. R. 
5, 17-18. 

1 See Levy, Chald. Worterb. - Noldeke, GGA. 1884. p. 1019. 


6. iii. was. (Q e re wha) is probably plural and should be trans- 
lated "sides" 3 . Assyr. gdbbu "part of a sacrificial animal" 
mav be a cognate; Str. III. 247, 3. The stem of as is 335, 

Ar. ^yb.. 

7. i. wa^K for rrorWR, like "nnx. It is a fern, absolute 
state of "jnaiK. 

7. ii. n|D^a Haph. ptc. ppi. This reading is correct. 

7. iii. rttosi "stamped" from osi, cf. Heb. tofel; Assyr. rapasu 
"crush in pieces, thresh", V. R. 17, 27-29 cd; cf. narptisu 
"threshing sledge", V. R. 17, 32 cd. 

8. i. Siw, clearly a diminutive like the Heb. "Wtj Is. xxviii. 
10; 13; Ar. Jcutaib; see Ols. Gr. § 180. 

8. ii. np^>o, so Bar; not np^o; see Kautzsch § 25 b. 

8. iii. npsnx. The fern, form of the tyre mpsnx is unneces- 
sary, as a common gender is peculiar to the Biblical Aramaic. 
See on v. 5. 

9. i. vial, cf. on iii. 20. xai is used of placing a throne also 
T. Jer. i. 15. 

9. ii. ynafi pins, cf. dwa xa. Jos. xiii. 1. 

9. iii. "jimiu. See on iii. 22, p. 217. 

10. i. tnsfcx. The Aram. "pE&x of the tyre is correct, see 
p. 222, on iv. 14, iii; d-hudn. 

10. ii. ' ( ian, which should be ^a-i, is pure Aramaic and the 
tyre *,aa"i is merely an unnecessary Hebraism 4 . 

11. On the text of this verse, see Kainphausen, p. 31. It 
does not seem necessary, according to some commentators, to 
consider that the first r.iin nm is an erroneous repetition of 
the second. M. is probably correct. 

12. i. v>"iyn is a circumlocution of the passive perf. "had 
been taken away". 

12. ii. ro-ix is a substantive "prolongation"; cf. on iv. 24. 

13. «»« "ia, cf. ynax -oa, '<¥ lxxii. 4; also isnrai isa, etc. 
15. i. twana from &ro, cf. Kautzsch § 47, rem. 2. The 

5 So Bevan and Behrmann. + See Kainphausen, p. 81. 


Assyrian Jcaru "to cause trouble, pain, 01 grief" is clearly a 
cognate; cf. V. R. 2, 54; also Jcuru "trouble", IV. R. 59, nr. 1, 
15 b; ZB. p. 92, n. 1. 

15. ii. ifiwi jon vm, cf. also viii. 1; 1 Sam. xxv. 24, for 
the pronoun construed with the suffix. 

15. iii. W! from *'->). So Bar. The same word appears 
in Heb., 1 Chron. xxi. 27 with the meaning "sheath". It 
should probably be punctuated here ayia "its sheath", e. g. "my 
spirit was troubled in the midst of its sheath" 5 . The word 
is of Persian origin. 

17. "psa, fem. is better here than the masc. )*%&. 

18. i. y*wb$ ittjwig. This is a strange expression, because 
in iv. 10, W*Tp is used of an angel. The author seems to wish 
to emphasize here the divine character of the Israclitish people. 
As they were the holy ones of the Most High (yi^?), he calls 
them by a slight turn of expression "the most high holy ones", 
e. g. those pertaining to the Most High, using yrt& adjectivally. 
The unusual plural of the word is to be explained in this 
way. It is not a plural of majesty, fpbs is of course not 
Aramaic, which would be &r&5>j cf. iv. 14; 21. 

18. ii. 'i'oorr, Haph. of "jon; see on ii. 37, p. 210. 

18. iii. vpzfos> IS is omitted by LXX. and 0; see Kainp- 
hausen, p. 32. 

19. rrox "I desired"; see on iv. 14, p. 222. 

20. "pwi pi jOD-ipi "and (as for) this horn, it had eyes". 
The l in 'p'W is the explanatory copula, as iu viii. 10; 24. 

25. i. 12& "against"; see on vi. 5. 

25. ii. ato] "destroy";* cf. Assyr. bain in napsataS uballi "He 
destroyed their life", AW. p. 174. 

25. iii. rn, cf. on ii. 13; vi. 6. 

26. 3FP is the Pc'al impf. of nr^ and not a contracted 
Ithpe'el 6 . 

3 See also Kamphausen for other views. u So Behrmann. p. 32. 
See Kamphausen. p. 32. 


2 1 ?. rant* is a vivid perfect with the sense of a future 
perf. "shall have been given". 
28. i^s yurw Tm, cf. v. 9. 


1. i. For the form -isujxbn, see on v. 30, p. 234. 
1. ii. bxin -ox -&k rwo. See on vii. 15, ii; p. 239. 

1. iii. rftm "before"; cf. Gen. xli. 21; Is. i. 26. A better 
expression would be rwiBN-o, 1 Kings xx. 9. 

2. i. wah, a late Hebrew expression, is probably a loanword 
through the Syriac from the Assyr. birtu "fortress", I. R. 
Asurn. ii. 129. It is used Neh. ii. 8 of the Temple stronghold 
and has passed into the Greek of LXX. in the form (logic 
as a word for fortress • ( ia ta i». In Jos. Ant. xv. 11, 4 fidgig 
is used, as in Nehemiah, especially to denote the Temple as 
the fortress and palace of Jhvh. 

The classical Greek word fidqig "a flat-bottomed boat used 
in Egypt", Her. ii. 41; 96; 179; (iaq^agoL ftdgideg, Eur. i. 
A. 297, has probably no etymological connection with the 
(idqig of LXX. and Jos., but may be an Egyptian loanword. 
It is interesting to notice, however, that the Scholiast on 
.ZEschylus Pers. 554 knew of the other usage of the word, 
as he adds the comment that (idqig "boat" is from ftdgig, which 
is a Persian city! 

2. ii. dV*S is the Heb. form of Assyr. Elamtu, a fern, 
formation from elammu "highland". 

2. iii. ba*iK "bank" is evidently connected with d^ts "to*, Is. 
xxx. 25; xliv. 4 and with ten "canal", Jer. xvii. 8. Whether 
or not it is connected with the Assyr. nbbal, the present of 
abdht "bring" (so Jensen), is very doubtful. 

3. i. inst ii&t "a ram". For b*n, cf. Assyr. alu "stag", II. R. 
6, 11 cd. iret is plainly the indefinite article as in viii. 13; 
1 Kings xix. 4, and even in the older books, 1 Sam. i. 1. 


3. ii. cnjnp and Wf (v. 7) foi' the dual punctuation D^p, t:--. 

4. i. nar. The Pi c el of naa is used also 1 Kings xxii. 11; 
2 Chr. xviii. 10, in the sense of overthrowing enemies. 

4. ii. Vnsn (scl. tVWSb). Hitzig and Meinhold translate 
"became great" as in our own A. V., but the rendering; "did 
great things" is better: cf. v. 10; w. 24ff., where his great 
acts are described. 

5. i. "hbx is a late Hebrew word for Tiro, cf. w. 8; 21; 
Ezra viii. 35; 2 Chr. xxix. 21. The stem is probably cognate 
with Ar. yJuo "jump, spring" with ^o 3 as in yd*, xsr 

5. ii. mm -pp = na*ia yp as in 2 Sam. xxiii. 21 Qfre. See 
Kamphausen, p. 32 on rmn; also v. 8. 

6. ins nans "in the fury of his power". For nan "fury", 
cf. Is. lxvi. 15. 

7. i. bsx after a verb of motion, as in Gen. xxxix. 10. 
bsx S^aa is more vivid than the ordinary usage with tj>. 

7. ii. i^bx nanami. A late Hebrew form; also in xi. 11. 
See Bevan, p. 30. 

8. KfiK mm rt&sni. This text can hardly be correct, al- 
though von Lengerke, Ewald and Behrmann endeavour to trans- 
late it as it stands. Gratz and others read minx instead of rmn, 
following LXX. Vteqci, which makes both better sense and 
grammar; viz., "and there arose others, e. g. four, in place of 
it toward the four winds of heaven" 1 . 

9. i. ntoxa is undoubtedly corrupt. Instead of n-wxa nnx, 
Ave should read with Bevan, p. 13, nrwa minx pp, following 
vii. 8. The only objection to this theory is that the nnx of 
M. appears in both the Greek versions; ev, which might 
only show, however, that the error was very ancient. See on 
this passage Kamphausen, p, 33. 

9. ii. inxn = inxn -pat, xi. 16; 41. It is possible that we 
have here a paronomasia with xnu of the next verse, i. c. 
glory — host of heaven. The LXX. wrongly read "pss. 

1 See Kamphausen, pp. 32 33. 

Pri d oe , Daniel, ]i! 


10. i. xsrsri ]q. Partitive yo, as in Ex. xvii. 5; 'buevsn lapto. 

10. ii. D^siDn )vn. This is the explanatory copula "namely, 
of the stars", as in vii. 20; sec above p. 239. 

11-12. This text as it stands defies interpretation. The 
difficulty really lies in the change of gender between this 
v. 11 and vv. 9-10; 12. The text of w. 11-12 should perhaps 
be amended as follows: Tvatnri nnn sisaai nV^:.- MSn "ito -i?", 11 
n^*ix riax "VtiTI :-rs2 -p - ?Pm to -,n: tfxa:;" 12 littwpa fDH -::n: 

"And even mito the prince of the host it (fern, the horn) 
exalted itself and from him (the prince of the host) was taken 
away the daily offering and the place of his (masc. the prince's) 
Sanctuary was cast down. And its (fern, the horn's) host was 
appointed against the daily offering on account of iniquity. 
And it (the horn) will cast down truth to the earth, and will 
undertake and carry out successfully". It should be remem- 
bered that in v. 11 the fern, wftrd "horn" was probably the 
subject of Vn;n, which must therefore have lost an original 
final n, perhaps by dittography with the following 1. The 
unnecessary assumption of a change of gender here with the 
word "king" understood as being the subject of some of the 
verbs and the fern. ",")p of others is what has caused all the 

If the above translation be accepted, the tyre anri must be 
read instead of the Ivth'ih trnn. In -,n:n ana of M. (12) the 
r probably stands for an original n which formed the suffix 
of xns, e. g. (TOM "its host (the horn's)", in contrast to the 
host of Israel in v. 11. I cannot agree with Moore in rejecting 
xn:i. - ( r: should then become )V\i Niph. in accordance with 
Kamphausen's suggestion, p. 33 2 . 

For other views, see Bevan, p. 133; Behrmann, ]). 54; 
Kamphauscn, p. 33; Moore, JBL. XV. pp. 193-7. 

- pr -,r: is used of punishing sins 2 Kings xviii. 14; Jonah i. 14; 
Ezek. vii. '.). 


13. ^ahaite can only be the result of an erroneous scribal 
contraction of ^siaix ijbs which perhaps arose from the writing 
isisAk "e. A cognate with ^ibt is the Assyr. reduplicated form 
p/ilp/d "a certain one", frequently occurring in the legal phrase 
ptdpul mar pulpul "A. the son of B." 3 ; cf. also Ar. ^j^Ls. 

The extremely difficult text of this verse should perhaps 
be revised as follows: — sfrpi np oaten 5>ttJE>rri Tiapin fw ^na "^l 

"For how long is the vision of the daily offering and of 
the devastating transgression? (For how long shall there be) 
a giving over both of the Sanctuary and the host to tram- 
pling?" The question is thus divided into two clauses, each 
reverting to "»na i". It seems better to read here finite verb- 
forms, which can be done without any radical alteration and 
not attempt Math some commentators 4 to introduce extra words 
into the text following the corrupt version of LXX. The 
sentence can be made intelligible to the reader with only three 
minor changes ; viz., the deletion of the n in M. "ptnn, which 
may have arisen from a dittography with the preceding % the 
insertion of n before the Pilpel participle nate! = nptea, and 
the introduction of b before oana. 

For the idiom oa"ia^ )r\i, cf. noirab -,n: "to give over to de- 
struction", Is. xlii. 24, and for other views on the passage in 
general see the commentaries already referred to under the 
preceding verse. 

15. i. "S 13N in&ro, cf. vii. 15. 

15. ii. -as is evidently a paronomasia with the following 

15. iii. bis Vip "a human voice" like mst p "a human being". 

16. i. bN-nn; "man of God" with the relic of the gen. endiug 
as in btppB. 

16. ii. i^n, also Ju. vi. 20; Zech. ii. 8, is the abbreviated 
form of nt|n, cognate of the Ar. relative ^AJf. 

3 See Haupt, BA. i. p. 114. 4 Bevan, p. 135; see also Kamp- 
hausen, p. 33. 



17. i. b pn "instruct" is unusual, cf. Job vi. 24. It is 

generally found with rx, as Neh. viii. 9. 

17. ii. i^as, also v. 18 from to?) "place", is a late Hebraism 
which occurs also x. 11; Neh. viii. 7; 2 Chr. xxx. 16. 

17. iii. din p pn "Give attention, O human being". This 
usage of -pa is peculiar to the Qal, '*¥ xciv. 7 and to the 
Hiph. Is xxix. 16. 

18. inoTia. This stem generally means "to lie in a deep 
sleep", Pr. x. 5; Jon. i. 5; cf. rraTin. In our passage, how- 
ever, it evidently means "to faint, swoon", as in x. 9; 
*P lxxvi. 6. 

21. i. Ttfan "the hairy one"; not an adj. "hairy", qualifying 
T'BS. For this expression, cf. d**j»h TWO, Gen. xxxvii. 31 and 
the Assyr. cognate sartu "hah-", especially of a goat, in IV. R. 
5, 32f-34fc; sarat imiki. 

21. ii. yf\ -;bn; cf. Assyr. Yanianu (with middle m pronounced 
like iv); (). P. Yaund and Ar. _jb*j. All these expressions 
are of course variations of r> hovia h . 

22. i. iiaa should probably be vud "out of his nation", 
following LXX. 

22. ii. nnur is really an archaic form; cf. Ar. .jJUib. It 
is probably wrong here and should be read rtilasn 6 . 

23. Diyirsn onnr. Jt is not necessary either to change nnn 
to on, Gall, p. 49; Behrmann, p. 57, nor with Meinhold and 
Ewald to alter d^q to ta^s, following the versions 6 . 

24. i. nixbas is not the object, as in xi. .36, but is used 
adverbially "wonderfully", as in Job xxxvii. 5. 

24. ii. rPruiri. Bevan, inspired thereto by Gratz, who pro- 
nounces this passage suspicious, wishes to tend for i—mr, nntr 
or mia* 1 , which seems unnecessary. 

25. i. "hz-jj (25) !»Sl crnp osi. Gratz and Bevan, following 
LXX. '/.at srci tovq ayiovg to diavoijf.ia ccutov, suggest the 
reading "bzw o-ninp *>91. It does not seem advisable, however, 

6 See above pp. 78—9. ° See Kamphausen, p. 34. 


to introduce a radical textual alteration like this, whore it is 
possible to explain the received text satisfactorily. The prob- 
ability is that the l in o-nanp dsi is the explanatory copula, 
as in v. 10; vii. 20. 

25. ii. silvan j also x. 21; 24. This word means "peace" 
everywhere else in the O. T. thus, l F cxxii. 7; Pr. i. 32; 
xvii. 1; Jer. xxii. 21; Ezek. xvi. 49. In Daniel it undoubtedly 
means "suddenly, unawares" like the Syriac men shelya. It 
is a synonym of the Greek ti-dmva in 1 Mace. i. 30 where 
the same event is mentioned. 

27. i. ^n">bn:i irvfij as it stands may mean "I became ill", 
the two yerbs being co-ordinated: "I became and I was ill(?)". 
As the meanings "became" 7 in such a construction or "fainted, 
was finished" for rpns are doubtful 8 and as the LXX. dis- 
regards ^n^ni here as well as the following i 9 , it is perhaps 
better to cancel it entirely and read simply inibiris. irvfij may 
have arisen as an erroneous dittography for the following wbrw. 

27. ii. "psa pxi. This phrase must refer to the 1 p. subject 
of oainttsxi "and I was astonished .... and was no understander 
(thereof)"; cf. xii. 8: pax kVi Watt! isri. 


1. i. loTntrriN is a corruption of the original Persian 
Khshayarsha = Xerxes, lit. "eye of the kingdom". The form 
of the name in the Aramaic inscriptions is ©"VttMij cf. CJS. 
pt. 2, p. 125. 

1. ii. "|bati. Hoph. only here hi the O. T. 

2. i. wa "I understood, perceived". This is probably an 
irregular Qal perfect form like pa for p in x. 1. The only 

7 See references quoted p. 200, n -1 ": = happen. 8 See on ii. 1, 
p. 200. s This in itself is of course not a sufficient reason, as 8 
translated ^""n: by ixmui/J^v "I fell asleep, fainted". 


parallel case in Heb. is rvoi-i, Job xxxiii. 13. Neither wa 
nor "pa can possibly be shortened forms of the Hiph. l as the 
older commentators thought 2 . 

2. ii. rmbv really a n'b infin. Pfel for the regular xiab. 
In late Hebrew the verbs x v b show a marked tendency to 
assimilate themselves to the rT? paradigm; cf. Siegfried u. 
Strack. Neuheb. Gr. § 97 c. 

5. On ^nisa^ without pl v see Kamphausen, p. 35. 

G. bx without Maqqeph as in Is. xxxvi. 12. For the text- 
ual differences between the versions of Bar and Ginsburg, 
see Kamphausen, p. 35. 

9. i. nirnbo. The singular fin-^o occurs l P cxxx. 4 and the 
plural in Neh. ix. 7. 

9. ii. ■>= is concessive here "although", as the translators of 
the A. V. correctly saw; cf. Ex. xiii. 17. 

11. ^nm from "jWj cf. v. 27, used of pouring out wrath 
also 2 Chron. xii. 7; xxxiv. 25; Jer. xlii. 18; xliv. 6. 

13. nwn nsin bo ihH. Although this is most probably the 
subject of the following verb nxa, it is also attracted by the 
preceding passive participle airo, so that it receives the sign 
of the accusative nx as the subject of a passive, rwa bo nx 
may be construed both as the subject of rttb and of mrc 3 . 

17. i. daui "desolate" occurs also Jer. xii. 11; Lam. v. 18. 
It was probably used purposely in order to connect the 
desolate Sanctuary with Damn 5>iusn "the desolating trans- 
gression" in viii. 13 which was the cause of the Sanctuary 's 
condition, and also with the "ffl yipia in v.. 27 and xii. 11 
which described the sacrilegious act of Antiochus Epiphanes. 

17. ii. isiK pals. Although it would be possible with Hitzig, 
p. 150, to retain the text here on the analogy of Gen. xix. 24, 
where the proper name is used instead of the personal pronoun, 

1 Cf. Noldeke, ZDMG. xxxvii. pp. 525 ff. 2 So Hitzig, p. 145. 
3 See also Bevan, p. 151. who quotes 1 Kings ii. 21, but cf. Gesenius- 
Kautzsch, Gr. 26 § 117. 1. Behrmann, p. 61 makes fiSIFl &d tltf depend on 
jr-nb in v. 12; cf. Kamphausen, p. 33. 


the combinatioD seems a harsh one. The LXX. read here 
I'rev.ei' tcov dovlwv oov, e. g. -,"i-: - poi which Bevan, p. 151, 
proposes to accept. The simplest emendation, however, and 
probably the correct one is that of 0) who reads i-'re/Jv oov 
KvQie, ViK -)$vh "for Thine own sake, O Lord". Behrniann's 
idea that this is a gloss (p. 01) is quite without Inundation. 

IS. i. nnps Qfre is preferred by most commentators to the 
shorter K e thib nps 4 . 

18. ii. i:^;i:nr wb^-z. For this idiom, cf. Jer. xxxviii. 26, 
which is an extension of the Qal usage; cf. Ju. xxx. 7. 

21. i. r&nina. See above, p. 240 on viii. 1. 

21. ii. rriz q|». These words have been explained by some 
commentators 5 as being derivatives from r:-\ viz., the Hophal 
C]sp — qsia, or from a noun r:- like -i£-, neither of which forms, 
however, occurs elsewhere. Moreover, the stem r:- never 
means "to hasten", but always "to be weary" as in Is. xl. 28. 
The probability is that we really have here derivatives of qis 
"to fly" which can also mean secondarily "to proceed with 
great rapidity". Thus, it is used tropically of the swift march 
of an army, Is. xi. 14 and of the progress of a fleet. Is. Ix. 8. 
If the text of M. be retained, rvz may be regarded as the 
Hoph. of C)W 6 , while r^-a should perhaps be cancelled entirely 
as an erroneous dittography from cpa; cf. Q jcet6i.ievo^ "flying", 
with no qualifying adverb. As the Hoph., however, is a anai 
leyo/.ievoi> and therefore seems to be a somewhat unnatural 
usage for the Qal or Pilpel 7 , it may not be out of place to 
suggest that r:-z ?i"2 of M. is a corruption of an original 
Pilpel participle q&W», as in Is. xiv. 29. The reading of LXX. 
ta%Ei (peoof-iEvog, does not necessarily prove the existence of 
the obscure Vj9*0, but may have been simply a free rendering 
of r2""c as applied to an angel, e. g. not "flying", but "hastening, 
rapidly" s . 

4 See Kainphausen. p. 35; Hitzig. p. 151; Behrmann, p. 63. 
Hitzig, p. 151; Havernick: von Lengerke, etc. B So Behrmann, \>. 62 
7 Cf. Gesenius, Thes. p. 010. 8 See on this passage Kainphausen. p. 36 


21. iii. *b» Mb "approached me", from :.":. This verb is 
construed with bx, Jon. iii. 6; Jer. li. 9; Job iv. 5. 

22. pr. LXX. read van "and he came", but cf. Kamp- 
hausen, p. 36. 

23. nrw rvnuan i=, cf. m-nsn tt^K, x. 11; 19, but there is 
no necessity for the supposition that the word urw was originally 
in the text; cf. Kamphausen, he. cit. mition really means 
"preciousness", as in xi. 38; 43. It is never applied to persons, 
however, except in Dan. ix. 23; x. 11; cf. rvnsn ^3, Gen. 
xxvii. 15; niTian onb, Dan. x. 3. The reading of LXX. 
eleeivog and forx. 11 avd-QiOTiog eleeivog presupposes, as Bevan 
correctly states, an original rwon, but this is not a sufficient 
reason to alter the text of M. here. 

24. i. disaia instead of roEMJ, as Ex. xxxiv. 22 et passim, 
is peculiar to Daniel; cf. x. 2ff. 

24. ii. ^nns is a well known late Heb. word, but a orVrai; 
X8y6f,ievov in the O. T. 

24. iii. mx-jn dsirfci siusn vbzb, KHMb; nxan dtir&i, Q e re. 
The Pi c el form xrs, however, is strange, as it occurs nowhere 
else. It should probably be the Qal infin. xb:?b which would 
harmonize better with the second member of the KHhtb n'nnb. 
The singular form nxan of the Q e re, altered in order to cor- 
respond with the sing, sujs of the first member, is unnecessary. 
For dnn in the sense of "seal up, complete", cf. Ezek. xxii. 15. 

25. i. rnadbi rr'ttjnb; rcnssai sitt)r\. Bevan suggests the emen- 
dations niirrte and aran from nttJi, e. g. "to people and build" 
and "shall be peopled and built" (cf. Is. xliv. 26; Jer. xxx. 18; 
Ezek. xxxvi. 10). 

25. ii. vvihi 21m. The last part of the verse really baffles 
interpretation. The chief difficulty is iu the word ■pin, re- 
garding which there are many views. Gratz renders "public 
places and walls", altering pnn to pin; cf. Q Tckctxda xai 
TEi%og. Bevan makes a still better emendation to yr, "street" 
and translates "public places and streets". Behrmann suggests 
the possibility that both words may be proper names of certain 

. CHAPTER IX. 240 

well known parts of Jerusalem near the Temple. Perhaps 
the safest course is simply to leave the word "pin unaltered 
and to translate "public places and trenches", understanding 
it to refer not to the fortification trenches, but to the irrigation 
ditches of the gardens, following the usage of the word in the 
Mishna and Talmud 9 . The idea would then be that Jerusalem 
was to be entirely rebuilt, both in its public places and private 
gardens) in short, that the city was once more to be a fit 
residence for Israel. 

25. iii. DT"n pisai. It is absolutely impossible to make 
sense 10 of these words, unless with the older commentators we 
emend pis to yp and connect the phrase with Griitz and Bevan 
with the following verse : n^saim "m-iso DTo>n ypn "And in the 
end of the times, namely after the sixty two weeks" 11 . The 1 
in "v-inso is probably the explanatory copula. 

26. i. ib "pso. Many commentators believe that the text is 
mutilated here and that some word like 'Ox 12 or 'ins 13 has 
fallen out, but the whole question is doubtful. If the text 
of M. be correct, these words may perhaps be translated "and 
there shall be no one for him" e. g. no one to follow him(?) u . 

26. ii. cjaia "overwhelming flood", cf. xi. 22; Nah. i. 8; *? 
xxxii. 6. 

27. i. n^b ima -msm. Behrmann tries to translate this 
phrase without altering the text "and he shall cause many to 
be so haughty that they shall exalt themselves over the 
covenant", e. g. he shall cause many of the Israelites to dis- 
regard the divine law of Jhvh. Such a rendering, aside from 
the syntactical difficulties in the way, does not give a true 
picture of the policy followed by Antiochus Epiphanes. His 
chief method of bringing the covenant into disrepute among 

9 See Levy, Neuhebr. Worterb. 10 See Behrmann, p. 63; Bevan, 
pp. ISSff.) Kamphausen, loc.cit. for full discussion of the various views. 
11 In spite of Behrinann"s attempt to make it mean "und zwar wenn 
die Zeiten knapp gerechnet werden". 12 So Fell. 13 So Gratz, 
following xi. 45, but see Kamphausen, p. 37. u So also Behr- 
mann, p. 63. 


the Jews was not to sneer at it and thus make the people 
ashamed of it, but rather to persecute all who disobeyed his 
commands. Cornill's rendering, therefore, "He will make the 
covenant difficult for many" is better, but necessitates the 
reading -^ssi-i 15 for -i-qji-i. Perhaps the best suggestion is that 
of Gratz who substitutes -nn"n for *nnain. This can only mean 
"and lie shall abolish the covenant for many", e. g. he shall 
make it impossible for many to perform their religious duties. 
Bevan, p. 160, reads issirri "and the covenant shall be annulled", 
but this seems too radical a textual change. 

27. ii. o^-iius d^sipttJ q;= tei. For qD3 bs read 1:2 hi; cf. 
xi. 20 16 : "and instead thereof (there shall be) a desolating 
abomination" "ppa, sg., cancelling the final syllable of b^sipiB 
as a possible dittography with the a in the following noiiuo 17 . 

27. iii. I5"i should probably be pointed nsn which must mean 
"but furthermore". 

27. iv. na-inui r&s "ruin and judgment". These words are 
probably borrowed from Is. x. 23; xxviii. 22, as Bevan con- 
jectures (p. 160). 

27. v. troiu) for noiuin, Pilpel participle "the desolator". This 
is parallel with bbiujs ppus "the desolating abomination". 


1. i. ixttJSttAs, cf. v. 30. 

1. ii. Has "the distress was great"; aox as in Is. xl. 2; Job 
x. 17. 

1. iii. yu an irregular Qal perfect for "js. See above on 
•wo, p. 245. LXX. and A. read here unnecessarily •pir = "pat. 

,: ' Not "HSDS-i, Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung iiu A. T., p. 234. 
11. 2. See Kaniphausen, loc. cit. 16 See Kuenen, Historisch-kritisch 
Onderzoek ii. p. 472. 17 There are nearly as many opinions regarding 
this passage as there are commentators. 


2. wvr* DiMttJ nu&U "three full weeks"; also v. 3. B"a-- is 

4. S>pin "the Tigris". The form of the name with n 1ms 
excited some discussion. The usual Assyro-Babylonian desig- 
nation for this river was JJiqlat, but the form Idiqlat occurs 
II. H. 50, 7d; Sb. 372, and it is probable that this is the 
prototype of the Heb. bp-in and of the Samaritan bp-ih. The 
modern form Tigris (Greek TiyQtjg) is a corruption of the Old 
Persian Tigra which itself was a legitimate developement from 
Diqlat with change of original b to i 1 . 

5. t&sia must be an error for n^six in spite of LXX. Mcucpa'C. 

6. i. rax ifsi parallel with p-O; cf. Ex. xx. 18, where it is 
actually used of lightning. 

6. ii. vmbna probably simply "his feet"; cf. Ruth iii. 4; 7; 8. 

6. iii. bbp nura yiSsv The translation "polished" for V?p is 
not satisfactory. The expression here is undoubtedly borrowed 
from Ezek. i. 7 which is probably a corrupt text. Cornill 
suggests that we should there read rvi^p omssai rwn: pss. As 
Bevan points out, however, if the text of this verse in Daniel 
is corrupt, the corruption is older than our Book. The exact 
meaning of this text can therefore not be known, because it 
is impossible to decide as to how the author understood bbp. 

7. &anro should perhaps be jnnrtb, unless we translate 
"seeking to hide themselves", i. e. they fled being in act of 
hiding themselves 2 . 

8. i&S -jSna mti, cf. v. 9 and vii. 28 Aram, bs x:r. 
11. i. rvnan wa. See above on ix. 23, p. 248. 

11. ii. -pas is las. See viii. 16; 18. 

11. iii. Wio. Cf. also Ezra x. 9. 

13. du; Trim: i3Ki. The Niptfal of jAnm cannot mean "to 
conquer, get the upper hand" (Gesenius-Buhl s. v. *ir\i), as 
there is no parallel in Hebrew usage for this translation. 

1 Of. Delitzsch, Paradies, p. 170. 2 See Kampbausen, p. 37; Bevan, 
p. 167. 


irvo always means "remain over" or "behind"; Ex. x. 15; Gen. 
xxxii. 25. It is also not necessary to render it "while I had 
remained behind" as a pluperfect 3 , but simply "Michael came 
to aid me while I was left alone there", etc. 

14-. nnp^ for i-r^p? from nip, possibly owing to the influence 
of Gen. xlix. 1 : d^n rmnxn dans anpi "im nx nzb i-n^so, which 
may have suggested this passage in Daniel 4 . 

17. i. 7p<7 is undoubtedly a Palestinian Aramaism for rpx, 
cf. 1 Chron. xiii. 12. 

17. ii. nn?a, anb tov vvv. Some commentators declare 
this to be unsatisfactory and suggest the readings nroaa (as 
Jer. viii. 15) or msna as in v. 11 "from fear", but this is not 
necessary, nnsa is probably equivalent to nro "now" like txa, Is. 
xlviii. 7 for tx. Translate: "and as forme, now strength docs not 
remain in me", etc. LXX. rjG&evrjoa, but P. omits it entirely. 

19. iias should probably be ^mas. 


2. "(-n msba nx b:n *ns\ Tins use of na is strange, but we 
may infer that the verb dr&nb was understood after bah. There 
seems to be no reason to amend the text with Be van, p. 172. 

3. bujaa, a late Hebraism for rfoaaa. In 1 Chrou. xxvi. 6 
b^aa means "a ruler". 

4. i. "Haso "When he (as soon as he) shall stand up" may 
very well be retained. Several commentators, however, suggest 
the alteration laxsa "and when he had become strong", following 
viii. 8 1 . 

4. ii. ynryi, a Jussive form which has lost its significance, 
as in vv. 16; 28. 

5. pirn -mio lai. For this use of "ja compare v. 7 and Ex. 

8 So Bevan, p. 168, but see Kamphausen, p. 38. 4 So Bevan, 

l\;iiii])hausen, but of. Behrmann. p. 68. 
1 Soo Kamphausen, p. 39. 


vi. 25: bswais rnaaa. The l in "p\ is simple copula and the 
1 in pm-n should probably be cancelled as an erroneous repe- 
tition, although it is possible to regard it as the explanatory 
particle; cf. vii. 20, p. 239. 

6. i. ir-iM las* xbi should probably be isni losi xbi, following 
"and his seed shall not abide". 

6. ii. "iai -jron!. This is an extremely difficult text which 
is really incomprehensible. We should perhaps read: wra^j 
:d"ir\5>a apti-ra^i aib*fn riirtaai] son, altering lram of M. and reading 
W»a with Behrmann, p. 72. For other readings, see Kamp- 
hausen, pp. 39-40; Bevan, pp. 174-5. 

7. i. b^nn bx staii may mean "and shall come to power", 
although Bevau suggests the emendation b^n nrnbx va**, "and 
shall bring an army against them (the Syrians)". There seems 
to be no reason for changing the text, because the author may 
have simply written "the army", meaning the Syrian army. 
This would be quite in accord with his promiscuous use of 
suffixes and his obscure syntax in this entire chapter. 

7. ii. a tiw®, cf. Jer. xviii. 23. 

8. nniDOa is perhaps an error for QiTdpa from -joa. If the 
vowels of M. are correct, however, it must be from a singular 
form Tpoa = ^t», Is. xlviii. 5. 

10. i. 133% K e thtb should of course be i-oni Qfre. 

10. ii. liitrri, so KHliib, although it would be easier to follow 
the Q e re and read mam. 

11. larorw See on viii. 17, p. 241. 

12. i. nsai, an Aramaic form instead of the classical mam; 
cf. the reverse in vii. 10. 

12. ii. tisi. For this use of r& } cf. Koh. vii. 19. 

13. i. D">aii5 ninrn fpbi. This phrase is certainly very ob- 
scure. Unless we follow Behrmann and others in regarding 
EFVWn as a gloss from v. 14, the only proper translation is that 
of Lengerke: "At the end of the time"; viz., of several years. 
This rendering, which is indicated in the margin of the A. \\. 


seems perfectly allowable. Bevan, however, suggests that qisib 
may be a scribal addition to explain ninrn. 

13. ii. iBiai generally means "possessions, riches' 2 " {v. 24), 
but here seems to denote "weapons, warlike implements". 

14. i. tFb\ LXX. didvoicu "plans, devices". Kamphausen, 
p. 40, mentions the ingenious opinion that the original text 
had D-ob "Libyans", referring to the rebellious Egyptian 
provinces and that the LXX. erroneously read v\vA. There 
is no reason, however, to alter the text on the strength of this. 

14. ii. -jay isms 133. Bevan changes this ingeniously, but 

unnecessarily, to ?fi2 ->^-is -os "those who build up the breaches 
of thy people" 3 . 

14. iii. vim*, Hithp. impf., as in Nu. xxiv. 7. 

15. i. niisaa T*. LXX., P. and V. read nnsn amj, but 
this is unnecessary, mixaa is unusual; the word commonly 
used is nana. 

15. ii. i-nma ds is very strange, but the meaning is clear. 
Behrmann compares the expression sasn ds>, nanba d»; cf. 
2 Chron. 36, 19. 

16. For iiba read nhi with Bertholdt. 

17. i. -lrvnba bz, should probably be lnisba bx. The change is 
absolutely necessary to make a satisfactory translation. 

17. ii. rpra "with energy", qpn is a late Hebrew Aramaising 
form, cf. Esther ix. 29 and the adjective cppn, Koh. vi. 10. 

17. iii. rtttJSi lay D"nirm should be ffi»si lay on^ai, in spite 
of Kamphausen's objection to changing the D"nur of M. 

18. i. ma a«w, so K e thib. This is better than Q e re MM, 
following w. 17, because a^i denotes a fact, actual motion 
and not merely an intention or purpose as in v. 17. 

IS. ii. "p^p is used of a military leader Josh. x. 24 and 
Ju. xi. 6; 11. 

18. iii. lb aittji ins-in inbn ib irsin. The first lb must evi- 
dently be cancelled as Behrmann saw. As it is clear that 

» ZATW. i. p. 196. 3 See above p. 176. 


inbn has only a negative force, the word cannot possibly be 
correct in this passage where the sense requires an adversative 
particle. I suggest therefore that we read bnx "but" (Dan. 
x. 7; 21), of which v&a may be a textual corruption*. 

20. rvisia -\in •r.r: -non. Bevan transposes this "lai -non ir: 
and translates "an exactor who shall cause the royal dignity 
to pass away", referring to 2 Sam. xii. 13, but this is not 
necessary. I have no hesitation in adopting Kamphausen's sug- 
gestion (p. 41) here and interpreting ioaia "exactor" as referring 
directly to Seleucus IV. himself. It seems unlikely that "iin 
can be an allusion to Palestine like *ox in viii. 9. 

21. i. s-iibiun "unawares"; also viii. 25, see p. 245. 

21. ii. ripbpbn; also v. 34, means "slippery places" hi H s 
xxxv. 6; Jer. xxiii. 12, but it occurs in Daniel with the second- 
ary idea "treachery". 

22. i. There is no reason for reading cpujri with Bevan 
instead of 5|2& : n; cf. ix. 26. 

22. ii. m& faa "a Prince of the Covenant", e. g. the High- 
priest; cf. ix. 25. If the author had intended to express the 
idea "ally", he would have used the phrase wo ^rn as in 
Gen. xiv. 13. ri-i- alone without the suffix can only refer to 
the Covenant with God; cf. rvnnn y/bn, Mai. iii. 1. 

23. i. ]-o is used here in the sense "by means of"; cf. Job 
iv. 9; W xxviii. 7, etc. 

23. ii. ri-anrn, Aramaising infin. form. 

23. iii. lis in the sense of "partisans" is peculiar to this 

24. i. nrn?3 i;ai2J?3 may mean "the mighty men of the province" 
in accordance with Ts. x. 16; W 1 xxviii. 31, but this rendering 
seems unnecessary. 

24. ii. D!-6. Cf. the remarks on the obscure syntax in v. 7. 
24. iii. -ms\ Only here and in *P l.wiii. 31. 
26. i. lKrns. Cf. on i. 5. 

* Cf. however Hitzig, Bevan, Behrmami, Kamphausen, etc. 


26. ii. tfvcs&i should probably bo yff&i; soBevan and Kautzsch- 
Marti correctly. 

27. i. yrn in pause for sna from "m, a form like isa from lis. 
27. ii. r&xn s6 "it shall not prosper". The subject is in- 
definite; cf. Is. vii. 7, for a fern, verb used in this way. 

29. ns*nn&tti ttiittiKia ms-in &6i "And verily the latter shall 
not be as the first". The subject is really wnftttir, to which 
the 31 are prefixed, in order to strengthen the comparison 
(cf. Ezek. xviii. 4). 

30. i. dtd diix. c-iro is of course an adjective here. 

30. ii. rtioa "he shall lose courage" is an Aramaic form, 
occurring also W cix. 16. The Heb. cognate is fins. 

30. iii. 3U51. There is no necessity for translating this word 
with the following 02m "and he shall again be angry"; so 

30. iv. tmsn as in v. 28. 

31. i. oaiua y\pun should perhaps beaaun yipwn or DaiDan "an 
as in viii. 13 : nam siusn for cairn "an 5 . 

32. i. rv*ia isnuna, cf. D"a*in ""pinsa, xii. 3. swin is intran- 
sitive in late Hebrew. 

32. ii. vpirn "he shall make apostates". For the various 
meanings of this stem, cf. ZDMG. xxiii. p. 635. 

32. iii. rnpbn, which has the same meaning as mpbpbn 
v. 21; 34, is an adjectival formation like hisap. We generally 
find rnpbn, pi. of npbfi, cf. *P xii. 3; 4. 

32. iv. ',11-bx. ■'ST' u$\ wj is treated as a collective noun; 
cf. the pi. W, but with the sing, suffix in lirfcst referring back 
to it; cf. Jer. vii. 28. 

34. mpbpbra "treacherously". There is no reason for altering 
this to "riftj^gs with Behrmaim, p. 77. 

35. i. nnn. The n of the object, not "among them" (Meinhold; 
cf. Siegfried u. Stade, Hebr. Worterb.- s. v. cpx). 

'• For other views, especially that of Nestle in ZATW. 1883 that this 
is a corruption from DifflDn hv~. i. e. Zeus, see Bevan, ]». 198. 


35. ii. "jabbi = labnbi = fttbrfei. Hitzig amends to )&Y which 
seems unnecessary. 

3(>. i. cnbx bx; cf. the equivalent Aramaic expression "pnbx nbx, 
ii. 47. 

3(>. ii. ns<!=E:, cf. vii. 11. 

36. iii. D"T ribs, a quotation from Is. x. 25. 

38. 13= br must mean here "instead thereof", as elsewhere 
and not "upon his pedestal", referring to Zeus (Leng.). 

39. i. Some expositors suggest reading sftjg n? for "x DS, 
referring the allusion to a heathen people with whom Antiochus 
garrisoned the strongholds, or whom he directed to keep the 
fortified places in order, but there is no need for such a change 
which, moreover, is unsupported by the Versions. tv\htk or 
"with a god" can mean "iu support of a god" and would be a 
natural expression in the mouth of a Jewish author who might 
speak thus scornfully of a man supporting a heathen deity, 
reversing the ordinary use seen in Gen. xxi. 22; xxvi. 3. 

39. ii. -ii=n is quite correct, but should be vowelled "nsn. 
For this verb in the sense of "favour", cf. Dent. xxi. 17. The 
construction with a perfect iu the protasis and an imperf. in 
the apodosis has an exact parallel in Deut. xv. 14: ~p"0 ittJK 
ib inn -pnbx mn\ 

39. iii. "nrran pbn^ nmxi "and he shall divide the land for 
gain". The translation of V. "gratuito" which Behrmann, p. 80, 
has sought to uphold has no support from the text. Behr- 
mann's emendation to "nniari xb is unnecessary. 

40. nasti";, cf. viii. 4. 

42. nirbsb nii-i, cf. Gen. xxxii. 9. 

43. i. i30M, aVraS leyof-ieror in the (). T., is an Aramaism; 
cf. Frankel, p. 243. 

43. ii. vnsxaa for libra, cf. Ju. iv. 10. 

45. i. lriBR ^bnx soil, bnx sos 6 is used here instead of 

6 Cf. Is. Ii. 1(3; Eccl. xii. 11. 

l'riii ce , Daniel. 17 


the ordinary expression for pitching a tent x rtoa, probably 
for the sake of variety. 

45. ii. pas is a loan-word from Old Persian apadana. 


1. i. lay "shall arise", nas as in viii. 23; xi. 2; 3; 20. 

1. ii. nmrts xb "such as has not happened". See above 
p. 200, on ii. 1. 

2. i. is" nalK is a strange expression. We expeet rather 
■pxn is", "iss, however, is not an uncommon word in later 
Hebrew for "grave". 

2. ii. y\nm is found only Is. lxvi. 24, from which passage 
it may have been borrowed. 

3. i. trtwoo. Cf. Is. lii. 13. 

3. ii. ims ■nrn\ Cf. Ezek. viii. 2. The stem -iTnn "to shine" 
is «Vra£ Xeyofievov in the O. T. 

3. iii. D-ann ip^isa. . Cf. Is. liii. 11. 

4. reih nsnni D"o-i iboibi. Bevan, following LXX., insists 
on translating laaur by "they run to and fro (in fear)", a 
meaning which is perhaps more natural to the stem than any 
other; cf. Jer. v. 1. In Zech. iv. 10 and in 2 Chron. xvi. 9, 
however, this verb is used of the eyes of Jhvh surveying, 
e. g. "running to and fro" through the whole earth. This 
being so, there is no reason why the same stem might not 
be metaphorically applied to human eyes carefully perusing 
a written document 1 . Bevan's emendation, therefore, of wnn 
to r"-in "many shall rush hither and thither and many slmll 
be the calamities" is quite unnecessary. Behrmann's suggestion 
to read axir or alts for bewd, following LXX. fiag av a/coi.iarwatv 
is equally needless. 

1 In Amos viii. 12 also a a '43 is used with ttJpn in the sense "I 
running hither and thither to Beet a thing. 

CHAPTKlt Xll. 259 

5. nson, elsewhere always of the Nile. This general application 
of the word here is peculiar to Daniel and the later Hebrew 
writers. The Nile is called ndr Yarn in Assyrian, which may 
be a reproduction of the native Egyptian word J $r-*3, Kopt. 
ior, which was used to denote the large canal of the Nile 2 . 

7. i. nVss in the infin. Pi c el can mean "complete"; cf. Dan. 
ix. 24; Gen. xxiv. 19. 

7. ii. For t> pBfl, Bevan reads pBa f, Behrmann simply 
"n yti, without changing the position of -n, both commentators 
referring the participle to Antiochus Epiphanes, the "shatterer". 
It is preferable, however, to read ysy, cf. Is. xxx. 30. 

11. D-2U5 f\pa. See above p. 250. 

13. i. Robertson Smith wrongly cancels the first ypb as a 
transcriptional error. 

13. ii. -ror\ It is true that Tas> is never used of rising from 
the dead in Semitic, but Bevan meets this objection very 
readily by the remark that if, as is generally thought, this 
belief were a new one in the author's time, a fixed technical 
term may have been wanting 3 . The regular expression for 
the resurrection in later Hebrew is tertian r.?nn. 

13. ill. Vna seems to be used in the sense of inherited por- 
tion, as in Ju. i. 3; *F cxxv. 3. 

13. iv. tp-a\n yp is an equivalent expression to d^pi imnx, 
x. 14. 

2 BA. i. p. G12 and Delitzsch, Par. p. 312. 3 Dan., p. 208. 



The last contracts of the reign of Nabonidus are dated in 
the month Iyar (April-May) 538 B.C. The date 538 instead of 
the usual 539 is necessitated by the nine months' reign of Labasi- 
Marduk, unmentioned by the Ptolemaean Canon, which brings 
forward the date of the fall by one year. Babylon was taken 
on the 16th Tammuz (July 15th) 538, when Nabonidus ceased 
to reign. Cyrus entered the city the 3rd day of Marchesvan 
(October 27) evidently assuming the reins of government at once, 
as the first known contract of his reign is dated in the following 
month in his "commencement year"; i. e. Kislev lGth (December 
9th) 538. The official first year did not begin, therefore, until five 
months later; i. e. Nisan 537. 

As to the exact duration of Cyrus' reign there is some con- 
fusion. Although the Ptolemaean Canon gives him nine years as 
King of Babylon, a contract exists, dated in his tenth year, giving 
him the title "King of Babylon and of the Lands". It is possible, 
either that this may be an error, or that the writer may have 
confused the last year of Nabonidus or the commencement months 
of Cyrus with the first year of Cyrus' reign. The twenty-nine 
years of Herodotus i. 214 and the thirty years of Ktesias (see 
Justin i. 8.) attributed to Cyrus, refer to his combined rule over 
An«an and Babylon. It is therefore probable that Cyrus began 
to reign in An=an either twenty or twenty-one years before he 
captured Babylon; i. e. about 558 or 559; see Evers, Das Empor- 
kommen der persischen Macht unter Cyrus, p. 39, who sets his 
birth about 590. 

1 See above, p. 14. 



Among the defenders of the authenticity of the book should 
be mentioned: Ludcrwald, Die G ersten Gapitel Daniels nach 
historischen Griinden gepriift und berichtigt, 1787; Jahn, Dan. 
1880; Dereser, Dan. 1810 (answering Bcrtlioldl) ; Pareau, Institutio 
Interpret, v. i. : Royaards, Over den Geest en bet belang van hel 
Boek Daniel, Hag. 1821 ; Ackermann, 1829; Hengstenberg, 
1831; Havernick (answered by Droysen, Geschichte der Hellenen, 
vol. ii. p. 346); Ziindel, Dan. 18G1 ; Hilgenfeld, 1863; Kranich- 
1'eld, 1868; Keil; Franz Delitzsch in RE 1 vol. iii.; Caspari; Pusey; 
Andrea, Beweis des Glaubens, '88, p. 24111*. : Diisterwald, Die 
Weltreiche und das Gottesreich nach den Weissagungen des Pro- 
pheten Daniels, 1890, (reviewed by Siegfried, "Theologische Lite- 
raturzeitung", 10. Jan. 1891), etc., etc. 

It should be mentioned that Franz Delitzsch, in Herzog's RE 2 
vol. vii. pp. 469-479, (1878) had greatly modified his views 
regarding the time when the book of Daniel originated. He was 
not inclined to deny the possibility of a Maceabtean origin, and 
even said, (p. 471), that the book, considered as an apocalyptic 
work of the Seleucidan period, had more claims to canonicity, 
than if it were a product of the Achaemenian epoch distorted 
from its original form by later hands. 


The two most important records relating to the fall of Babylon 
under Nabonidus and its capture by the Persian Gyrus are the 
"Gyrus Cylinder" and the "Annals of Nabonidus", both of which 
have come to light recently. 

The Cyrus Cylinder is written on a barrel cylinder of unbaked 
clay, nine inches long, three and a quarter inches in end diame- 
ter and four and one-eighth inches in middle diameter. It was re- 
ported by Hormuzd Rassam in the Victoria Institute, Febr. 2nd, 
1881, as being the official account of the capture of Babylon. 

The text of the inscription was published in 1880 by Pinches 
on the 35th plate of the fifth volume of Sir Henry Rawlinson's 

1 See above, p. 14. 2 See above, p. 35. 


Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, and more recently in Abel- 
Winckler's Keilschrifttexte, Berlin, 1890, pp. 44ff. The first treatment 
of the inscription, embracing transliteration, translation and commen- 
tary, was published by Sir H. Rawlinson, Journal of the Royal Asiatic 
Society, xii 2 , pp. 70-97, 1880. Since that time translations have 
been given by Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, 
pp. 172ff.; Floigl, Cyrus und Herodot, 1881, which is based on Sir- 
Henry Rawlinson's work; E. Babelon, Les inscriptions cuneiformes 
relatives a la prise de Babylone par Cyrus. Paris, 1881; Halevy, 
Melanges, Cyrus et le Retour de la Captivite, pp. 4 ft'. ; Tiele, 
Assyrische und Babylonische Geschichte, pp. 470 ff., a paraphrase; 
Hommel, Geschichte Assyriens und Babyloniens; Eberhard 
Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, hi. pt. 2, pp. 120 127, a 
transliteration and translation based on a collation from a photo- 
graph ; Friedrich Delitzsch in Miirdter's Geschichte Babyloniens 
und Assyriens, 1891, pp. 259ff. a paraphrase; 0. E. Hagen, Bei- 
trage zur Assyriologie, ii. pp. 205 ff. 1891, transliteration, trans- 
lation and commentary from an entirely new collation, Sayce, 
Records of the Past, v. new series, pp. 144ff., a new translation, 
and finally, J. D. Prince, Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin, transliteration, 
translation and commentary, pp. 66 83, 1893. A transliteration 
of the cuneiform text is also given in Lyon's Manual, pp. 39 —41. 

The Annals of Nabonidus are engraved upon a gray fragment 
of unbaked clay in double columns front and back. The tablet, 
as we have it, is about four inches high and three and a half 
inches in breadth. The exact measurements are given in Bei- 
trage zur Assyriologie, ii. p. 206. Notice of the inscription was 
given by T. G. Pinches in 1880, in the Transactions of the Society 
for Biblical Archaeology, pp. 139—176. See also Athenaeum, 1881, 
p. 215, an article by Sir Henry Rawlinson who considered it to be the 
Annals of Cyrus, and Sayce, Academy, March 13, 1881, xvii. p. 198. 

The text of the document is given by Winckler, Untersuchungen 
zur altorientalischen Geschichte, 1889, p. 154, and again lately 
from a fresh collation by 0. E. Hagen, 1891, op. cit. pp. 2 48 11'., 
whose copy differs but very slightly from that of Winckler. 

The first translation of the inscription, which was made by Mr. 
Pinches, appeared in the Transactions of the Society for Biblical 
Archaeology, vii. 1882, pp. 153—169, and was accompanied by an 


introduction, transcription and notes. The same scholar submitted 
lines 1—4 of column ii. to a new collation, the result of which 
appeared in the Proceedings of the same Society, v. p. 10. 

Translations and paraphrases of the document have been given 
by the authors mentioned above as having presented translations, 
etc. of the Gyrus Cylinder, the most important being that of 0. E. 
Hagen, Beitrage zur Assyriologie, ii., pp. 21 5 If., with full commen- 
tary. , 


The name Belsarurur occurs of two other persons besides the 
king's son ; see above p. 35, note 29. 

The most important references to BelsarUQlir son of Nabonidus 
in the published contracts are the following: — 

(a) Strassmaier, Nabonidus p. 184, where mention is made of 
Nabii-ukhi-axi sipiri sa Belsarurur mar sarri. "N. the scribe 
of B. the son of the king". Dated 25th Nisan, fifth year of Nabo- 
nidus. Translation, Becords of the Past, New Scries, iii. pp. 124 fT. 

(b) Boscawen, Babylonian and Oriental Becord, ii. pp. 17—18; 
Bevillout, Obligations en Droits Egyptiens, p. 895. . . . Strass- 
amier, Congrcs de Leide, no. 80, Tablet S -f- 329, 79, 11, 17, 
mention of the same person, and of Nabu-rabit-qdte, the major- 
domo of Belsarurur, the son of the king. Dated seventh year 
of Nabonidus. Boscawen concludes from the mention of these 
especial servants of the king's son so early in his father's reign 
that the prince must have been born before the accession of 
Nabonidus, a conclusion hardly warranted by the premises, as the 
exact age when a king's son had his separate household is not 
known. It should be remarked, however, that if Belsarurur were in 
command of the army in the seventeenth and last year of his 
father's reign, the prince was probably older than seventeen. 
Compare also in this connection the statement recorded below, 
that in the first year of Nabonidus a plot of ground was sold to 
a servant of Belsarucur for his lord. 

(c) Strassmaier, Nabonidus, p. 581. Translation: Becords of 
the Past iii. pp. 124-5, mention of Nabu-rdbit-qdie the steward 
of Belsarugur the mar sarri. Dated eleventh year of Nabonidus. 

1 See above, p. 37. 


(d) Strassmaier, Nabonidus, p. 688. Translation, Records of 
the Past iii. p. 1 24, — allusion to same official. Dated sixth year. 

(e) Strassmaier, Nabonidus, p. 662. Translation by Zehnpfund 
BA. i. p. 527, no. 25, a list of garments: 5 ciibat csirti ana xubd 
sa kurummate sarri Bclsarncur. Dated twelfth year. This is 
the only allusion to the king's son known to me, where he is 
not especially called mar sarri. The omission of the title in 
this case was probably because the mention of the royal steward 
shows who is meant. 

(f) Boscawen, Babylonian and Oriental Record, ii. p. 17, n. 1. 
Record of an offering made by the son of the king in Ebarra. 
Dated seventh year. 

Nabu-cdbit-qdte (Nebo seizes the hands) was the name of the 
major-domo of Neriglissar (Nebuchadnezzar, 34, 2/6, 1, 5, see 
Strassmaier, Alphabetisches Wdrterverzeichniss,) and of his son 
Labaxi-Marduk (Neriglissar, 2, 10/6, 2. See Bab. and Or. Record, 
ii. pp. 44; 48). The steward of Belsarucur may be the same 

To the contracts just mentioned should be added the two 
references to Belsarucur treated of by Pinches, New York 
Independent, Aug. 15, 1889: 

(a) Sale of a plot of ground by Marduk-eriba to Bel-rcma, 
servant of Belsarucur, son of the king. Dated 26 Ve-Adar, first 
year of Nabonidus. 

(b) The record of a small tablet from Sippar that Esagyda- 
rdmat, daughter of the king (Nabonidus), paid her tithe to Samas 
through Belsarucur. Dated 5th of Ab, seventeenth (last) year of 
Nabonidus. This payment took place in the month before Sippar 
was captured by the Persians. Pinches, op. cit., believed, however, 
that it had already been taken. The attempt of Boscawen, Trans- 
actions of the Society for Bibl. Archaeology, ii. pp. 27—28, (fol- 
lowed by Andrea, Beweis des Glaubens, 1888, p. 250, Gheyne, 
"Encycl. Britannica", vi. p. 803, etc.,) to identify Marduksaruciir, 
whose fifth year he thought he had discovered on a tablet, with 
Belsarucur is unsuccessful. The contract to which the reference 
was made belongs to the time of Neriglissar. See Tiele "Ge- 
scbichte", p. 476, Strassmaier, "Gongres de Leide", n. 115, p. 586. 



The name of the coin, dagerKug (Hebrew "JWYW) has been 
derived by some from the name Darius 2 , but it is extremely probable 
that there is no connection linguistically between the two. Putting 
aside all other difficulties, the form dctQU/Mg, if considered as an 
adjectival developement from JctQelog, has no analogy. As Georg 
Hoffmann has pointed out, ZA. ii., p. 53, forms like xeQa[iei/.6g, 
EijJoer/.6g come from KEQaftevg, Elfioevg, etc., and not from an 
original -etog. The x in dctQer/,6g he believes, therefore, is not 
of Greek origin 3 . The derivation, however, Which Hoffmann 
suggests (pp. tit., p. 56) from Dar-ik = {£)&, from Bar "gate"; 
i. e. the royal gate, has been retracted, Phoenician Inscriptions, 
Gottingen, 1889, p. 8. 

Bertin, Proceedings, Society for Biblical Archaeology, Feb. 5, 
1884, p. 87, mentioned that a contract of the twelfth year of 
Nabonidus contains the word dariku which he believed might 
be the original of the name of the coin. This dariku, however, 
seems to be the name of some agricultural product. So Tallqvist, 
Sprache der Contracte Nabunaids, p. 66. For the word, cf. Nbk. 
432, 7, Strassmaier, Babylonische Texte; darlka, Nbk. 347. 10; 
idrika-?-57] — also Alphabetisches Worterverzeichniss, No. 1919. 
It appears hardly possible, therefore, to connect it with the later 
daquv.og. While the true derivation of the name of the coin 
has probably not yet been discovered, its connection with the 
name Darius appears no longer possible. The assertions of Suidas 
and Harpocration, that the coin was not named from Darius 
Hystaspis, but from some older monarch must thus fall to the 
ground, and with them the hope of an identification of Darius the 
Median with an older king of this name. 

1 See pp. 49—50. 2 Compare Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 353; Lag. 
Abh., p. 242, quoted by Hoffmann ZA. ii. p. 50, who regarded JuQfixoe; 
like J«Qit'jxys as a by-form of Darius. 3 For the extreme improbabi- 
lity concerning the derivation of this word from the name Darius, sue 
his entire article ZA. ii., pp. 49—56. As early as Havernick, Unter- 
suchungen, p. 78, n. 3, 1838, the difficulty of such a theory was felt. 


Index of Subjects. 

The numbers refer to the pages. 

Alexander the Great, 144—5. 

Amnion, 187—8. 

Analogical Formations, 229-30. 

Angelology, 20; 86. 

Angels, 85; 90; 157. 

Antiochus Epiphanes, 19; 140; 

155; 179 ff. 
Antiochus Magnus, 174—5. 
Antiochus Theos, 172. 
Aquila, 1. 
Arioch, 67. 

Article, Indefinite, 208; 240. 
Assyrian Language, 11, n. 7. 
Astrologers, 62. 

Babylon, Fall of, 53-6; 92-105. 
Babylonian Traditions, 29 ff. 
Belshazzar, 35-42; 91-2. 
Berenice, 172—3. 
Book of Life, 189. 
Canon, Position in the, 15—6. 
Celsus, 15. 
Chalda:ans, 59—61. 
Chittim, 182; 256. 
Concubines 106 —7. 
Coptic Translation, 2. 
Cyaxares (Xenophon's), 48. 
Cyaxares, 51 2. 
Cyrus, 163-260. 
Dative, 227-8. 
Demetrius, 179. 

Daniel; birth and family, 24—5. 

life and death, 25—6; 61. 

in Ezekiel, 26-8. 

name, 197. 
Darik, 49-50; 265. 
Darius of Eusebius, 49. 
Darius the Mede, 44-56. 
Diminutives, 238. 
Dura, Plain of, 76. 
Ecclesiasticus, 16. 
Edom, 187-8. 
Ellipsis, 205. 
Empires, 6; 129 32. 
Eunuchs. 59. 
Feminine Plural in Hebrew and 

Aramaic, 226. 
Food, Refusal to eat, 61 2. 
Fiery Furnace. 79. 
Gabriel, 149-56. 
Genesis, Imitation of, 29; 67. 
Guardian Angels, 165—6; 167—8. 
Heavens, 87. 
Horns, 133. 
Host of Heaven, 146. 
Interchange of 1 and b, 286. 
Judas Maccabeus, 184. 
Labasi-Marduk, 260. 
Language, ('linage of, 11 13; 65. 

Characteristics, 19. 
Laodice, 173. 



Libyans and Ethiopians, 188. 

Lions' Den, 124. 

Little Horn, 19-20; 134—5; 145. 

Loanwords, 18. 

Magicians, 62. 

Moab, 187-8. 

Mount Paniuni, 176. 

Medes, 50-1; 116-22. 

Media and Persia, 143—4. 

Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin, 

Mina, 112-16. 
Musical Instruments, 77—8. 
Nabonidus; see Babylon, Fall of, 
Names, 61. 

Nebuchadnezzar, 30-5; 64; 91—2. 
Nineveh, Fall of, 52. 
New Testament, 23. 
Onias III., 147; 180. 
Perniansive in Assyrian, 232. 
Persia, Kings of, 170-1. 
Persians, 116—22. 
Peshitta, 2. 
Phraortes, 51. 
Plaster, 107-8. 
Porphyrius, 14. 
Prayer; Kneeling Posture, 125. 

Prostration, 165. 
Prophecies, Style of, 21. 
Prophecies, Uniformity of, 9. 
Ptolemy Euergetes, 174; 181. 
Ptolemy Philadelphus, 172. 
Ptolemy Philometor, 180. 
Ptolemy Philopator, 175. 

Ptolemy Physkon, 181. 
Ptolemy Soter, 172. 
Queen Mother, 43-4; 109-10. 
Resolution of Doubling by 3, 207; 

219; 237. 
Resolution of Doubling by "i, 220; 

Resurrection of the Dead, 21 ; 

Sacrifice, Daily, 147-8. 
Sanctuary, Pollution of, 183. 
Scarlet, 108-9. 

Scipio Lucius (Asiaticus), 178. 
Scopas, 176. 

Seleucus Callinicus, 174. 
Seleucus Ceraunus, 174. 
Seleucus Nicator, 172. 
Seleucus Philopator, 178—9. 
Septuagint Translation, 1. 
Seventy Weeks, 151—161. 
Shaphel, 216. 
Shekel, 112-16. 
Shinar, 58. 
Shushan, 142. 
Son of God, 81. 
Son of Man, 137-9. 
Soothsayers, 68. 
Sybilline Verses, 13. 
Symmachus Translation, 1. 
Ulai, River, 142. 
Uniformity of the Book, 9. 
Wild Asses, 111-2. 
Wives, 106-7. 
Theodotion's Translation, 1. 

Index of the most important Aramaic Words and Stems. 

x-itx, 202. 

ibN, 208; 237. 
Ki a «, 212. 
XX, 220. 
c:x, 219. 
x:"-x, 228. 
1-iK, 208; 237. 

iriK, 203. 
"iXU)&6a, 240. 
Ti'Xirbn, 234. 

xrn, 205. 

arna, 227. 

p% 208. 
m, 67; 203; 235. 




























214-5; 225 





204; 218; 229. 




(Hebrew pi 























234: 239 





205; 223. 

























a mas 




















Index of the most important Assyrian Words and Stems. 

Ebru, 205. 
Addru, 210. 
Alu, 240. 
Elamtu, 240. 
Emu kima, 231. 
Ammammu, 212. 
Imqu, 206. 
Ummu, 212. 
Andbu, 220. 
Uniitu, 225. 
Anjmnunnu, 228. 
Asi})u, 200. 
EUsepu, 200. 
Istenis, 209. 

Atitnn, 214. 
JMan*, 218. 
.Ba m, 205. 
Balatsu-ugur, 197. 
Bii'usu, 235. 
Ifcta, 239. 
JSant, 199. 
.B?Wm, 240. 
GaNw, 238. 
GmMu, 235. 
Gappn, 237. 
Dafcii, 231. 
DiZ6a<, 226. 
Diqlat, 251. 

^*, 229. 
Zaku, 236. 
£«'»m, 208. 
Zandnu, 220. 
Xa&aZtt, 218. 
Xangabu, 209. 
Xap&it, 209. 
Xisixtu, 216. 
Xusaxxu, 216. 
Xasdlu, 210. 
Ta&aaw, 204. 
Tawm, 236. 
7e»ttM, 221-2. 
Tarddu, 223. 



Yamanu, 244. 
Yaru, 259! 
Karu, 238-9. 
Kampu, 201. 
Kutallu, 227. 
Milieu, 223. 
Nabdlu, 202. 
Nazdqu, 234. 
Nemequ, 206. 
Nimm, 237. 
Nirmu, 217. 
Nasdru, 221. 

Nairn, 224. 
Paxdtu, 211. 
Paldxu, 215. 
Pardsu, 233, n. 
Pasdru, 201. 
(S6», 222. 
fuft&it, 221. 
Qupru, 225. 
Qarge akdlu, 214. 
#in*, 227. 
Raxdgu, 218. 
Ramu, 216. 

Rami, 205. 
Rapdsu, 238. 
Sabdbu, 217. 
Sabdsit, 229. 
Saxdtu, 203. 
&«&£***, 224. 
&wtot, 244. 
£attw, 222. 
Takiltu, 228. 
rwfcSa?, 207. 
2Ym, 206. 

Index of the most important Hebrew Words and Stems. 





n^bx bx, 

















mi a t>j3, 






' bp-in, 



las inr, 


245; 25 
















































line 1. 


note 7. 


line 32. 


line 1. 

line 28. 


line 16. 


line 21. 


line 2. 


line 23. 


line 13. 


line 25. 



line 30. 


line 17. 


line 8. 


line 10. 


line 17. 


line 15. 


line 19. 


line 17. 


line 21. 

note 4. 


line 13. 


line 10. 


line 24. 


line 22. 


The numbers refer to the pages. 

Peshitta, read Peshitta. 

'jJadi'C((fij'('<x7]c:, read y Jdc«¥i'«dii>(<xt]g. 

Jhoh, read Jhvh. 
Sernetic, read Semitic. 

culture 6 , read culture 7 . 

cornel, read cornet. 

xi. 12; Dt. i. 4, read 11. 12; Dn. i. 4. 
ttoti {Suits, read tiotiiSccCiq. 

(jxl&Qionog, read oxv&gwnos- 

(Is. lxi. 1), read (Is. lxi. 11). 

"to Aramaic alone, but occurs also in Hebrew", read "to 
Biblical Aramaic alone, but occurs also in the Targums." 

iii. 14, read v. 29. 

■pSKI ("prv-i) iii. 19, read -py&tt (■pS'if) v. 19. 
'<P xix. 13, read Prov. xix. 13. 

(Is. lvii. 8), read (Is. lviii. 8). 

ropnri, read ropnn. 

Paradies, p. 119, read Paradies, p. 219. 

wAJ", read yjjj. 

pfi, read pi:. 

iv. 34, read iv. 24. 

GGA. 1887, read GGA. 1884. 

Neh. ix. 7, read Neh. ix. 17. 

Ju. xxx. 7, read Jer. xxxvi. 7. 

nnn, read urn- 

ZDMG. xxiii. p. 635, read xxvi. p. 635. 


26. The picture of Daniel's tomb is given also in Riehm 2 , p. 1611. 
231. On Dan. v. 21 add the following: bOTIS "wild asses". So 0. It 

seems preferable, however, to read here JO"nj' "herds" (see 

Prince, Mene Mene Tekel Upharain, p. 111). 
235, line 4. Jer. xxvi. 16, read "Ruth i. 19, but see Jer. xxvi. 16." 
242, line 4. See for this passage Prince, JBL. xvii. pp. 203—4. 
246, linos 6—7. Neuhebr. Gr. §97c, add "for the \ of the Infinitive, 

and § 105 for the coincidence of the "xb and "nb verbs." 





Exhibiting the composite structure of the Books, with Critical Notes in English, 
under the title: 



With Notes, prepared by eminent Biblical Scholars Of Europe and America, 
under the Editorial Direction of 


Professor in the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. 

Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Bnchhandlnng. 


(Issued in ornamental stiff alligator paper wrappers). 

1 : Genesis, in nine colors, by the Rev. C. J. Ball, London. 120 pp. 

1896. Ji 7.50 

3: Leviticus, in three colors, by Prof. S. R. Driver and Rev. H. A. 

White, Oxford. 32 pp. 1894. Ji 2.50 

6: Joshua, in eight colors, by Prof. W. H. Bennett, London. 32 pp. 

1895. \ . Ji 3.— 

8: Samuel, in nine colors, by Prof. K. Budde, Strassburg. English 

translation of the Notes by Prof. B. W. Bacon, Yale University, 

New Haven, Conn. 100 pp. 1894. Ji 6.50 

11: Jeremiah, in red and black, by Prof. C. H. Cornill, Breslau. 

English translation of t$e Notes by Dr. C. Johnston, Johns Hopkins 

University, Baltimore. 80 pp. 1895. Jt 5.— 

14: Psalms, in red and black, by Prof. J. Wkllhausen, Gdttingen. 

English translation of the Notes by Prof. J. D. Prince, New York. 

96 pp. 1895. JI 6.— 

17: Job, in four colors, by Prof. C. Siegfried, Jena. English translation 

oftbeNotesbyProf.R E.Bronnow, Heidelberg. 50pp. 1893. Ji 3.50 

18: Daniel, in red and black, by Prof. Adolf Kamphatjsen, Bonn. 
English translation of the Notes by Prof. B. W. Bacon, Yale 
University, New Haven, Conn., and Prof. D. B. Macdonald, 
Hartford, Conn. 43 pp. 1896. Jt> 3.— 

20: Chronicles, in five colors, by Prof. E. Kittei,, Leipzig. English 
translation of the Notes by Prof. B. W. Bacon, Yale University, 
New Haven, Conn. 82 pp. 1895. Jt 6.— 


7: Judges, in seven colors, by Prof. 6. F. Moore, Andover, Mass. 

10: Isaiah, in seven colors, by Prof. T. K. Cheyne, Oxford. 

12: Ezekiel, by Prof. C H. Toy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 

19: Ezra and Nehemiah, in ten colors, by Prof. H. Guthe, Leipzig. 
English translation of the Notes by Prof. B. W. Bacon, Yale 
University, New Haven, Conn., and Prof. D. B. Macdonai.d, 
Hartford, Conn. 

A prospectus and specimen pages may be had upon application. 

Weimar. — Court printing office, 

RS1555 -P955 _ on the book of 

Princeton Theological M §- 1(| vllU \l\^\ Hill 

™7S 12 00012 5387