Skip to main content

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

See other formats




The International critical Commentary 







Edinburgh : l\ &c T. CLARK, 38 George Street 





First Printed .... 1927 
Second Impression . . . 1950 
Third Impression , . , 1959 







In the summer of 1918 Doctor John P. Peters did me the 
honor of asking me to collaborate with him on this commentary, 
which volume had long been assigned to him, but which his 
manifold activities had not permitted him to undertake. Ex- 
traordinary duties prevented me from accepting until the fol- 
lowing year. I had then but one brief interview with Doctor 
Peters on our common task. He died November 10, 1921. The 
publishers generously acknowledged me as heir to his under- 
taking, and the inheritance has given me an added sense of re- 
sponsibility for a work which should have borne his name. 

With Doctor Peters, my early teacher and friend, I associate 
the names of two close and dear friends who also during the 
prosecution of these labors have passed away — Professor Morris 
Jastrow, Jr., who died in 1921, and Professor Albert T. Clay, 
whose loss befell us last year. These three men were remarkable 
types of a brilliant generation in American Oriental studies. 
May they indulge me in recalling their ancient association with 
one another and my own intimate relations with them in work 
and friendship by the dedication to them of this volume. 

The mandate laid upon me in this commission was, it ap- 
peared obvious, the presentation of a primarily philological 
commentary. With all honor to the several brief commentaries 
on Daniel in English and German during the last generation or 
longer, we had still to depend, with the exception of the elab- 
orate apologetic commentary of d'Envieu, upon works of the 
third quarter of the last century and earlier; indeed, in large 
measure upon commentators of the first third of that century. 
Meanwhile, within very recent years the philological apparatus 
has been enormously enlarged by the discovery of the Elephan- 
tine papyri, along with a wealth of other new materials, in 
correspondence with the rapid development of all Orientalistic 
studies. Not that Daniel has been neglected. He has been the 
objective of liigher criticism and apology to an unparalleled ex- 
tent, especially since the revelations of Assyriology. But all such 



studies have necessarily been one-sided, have not met the need 
of a commentary devoted primarily to philology. Even in the 
field of Biblical Aramaic grammar no comprehensive grammar 
has appeared since that of Kautzsch in 1884, and none which 
includes the nev/ sources for study of that dialect. And the lack 
in this line has been especially evident in English and American 

In the second place, my interest has been attracted to the 
textual criticism of the book. I have gone so far afield in this re- 
spect that that part of my work may be regarded as an avoca- 
tion, but I trust that on this score it may claim some originality, 
if its results be approved. Again, with the treatment of the texts 
of the versions goes their interpretation. In the first place, their 
bearing on textual criticism cannot be valued unless they be 
understood as in the large interpretative documents, to be stud- 
ied in and for themselves; and in the second place, as the earliest 
interpretations of the Biblical books, they have an inestimable 
interest to the exegete, even if the results do not much affect the 
original text — as in Daniel they do not. 

In regard to the literary and historical criticism of the book, 
I have taken positive position, as one must in the clashing 
Entweder-Oder of the long discussion. The briefs have long been 
at hand in the cause celehre, nor is there sight of its adjudication. 
I have not been able to do much more than to register my rea- 
soned decisions, opinions which I trust will not appear captious 
or arbitrary to those from whom I differ. In some respects, e.g., 
the dating of cc. 1-6, I have broken, along with a number of 
recent scholars, with the regnant view of one camp that the 
whole book is Maccabaean. A positive contribution, however, 
may be found in my attempt to respect Daniel as a work of 
literature and as containing documents of real interest and value 
for the understanding of the Orient of its day. To this end I 
have tried to illustrate my work as far as possible from the his- 
tory and traditions of its age — an eclectic world in which min- 
gled Semitic, Persian, and Hellenic cultures. 

It has been my desire to do full justice to my predecessors, 
not only for honor's sake but from interest in the study of exege- 
sis, in the case of Daniel a peculiarly fascinating study. I have 
been concerned to discover and record the initiators of interpre- 
tations, and it has often been surprising to find how much that 


passes as "modern" may appear in an old-time Protestant or 
Jewish or Patristic commentator. On the other hand, except in 
cases of peculiar interest, I have not deemed it necessary to 
give caiencB of all the witnesses of interpretation, for one scholar 
or a few may be right, and the majority does not count as in a 
democracy. My regret is that I have not been able to make 
greater use of the Jewish commentators — the initial key to Bibli- 
cal exegesis, and of the great Protestant and Catholic scholar- 
ship immediately subsequent to the Reformation. As far as 
possible I have economized space and labor by reference to gen- 
erally accessible authorities. But there has been expansive treat- 
ment of certain subjects, especially those in the fields of Aramaic 
and comparative Semitic grammar, so that the work may serve 
as a guide to the reader who desires introduction to fields which 
largely lie beyond the scope of usual BibHcal studies. I should 
be gratified if my work may prosper the cause of Aramaic stud- 
ies. The English reader may welcome the constant registration 
of the four current English versions, and the opportunity to 
trace their dependence upon both elder and modern scholarship. 

The fully articulated Table of Contents will, it is hoped, facili- 
tate reference for the reader, while at the same time it avoids the 
necessity of elaborate indexes. 

In conclusion I have acknowledgments to make to several 
kind friends: to Professors G. A. Barton and R. P. Dougherty 
for painstaking contributions which will be acknowledged in the 
pertinent places; to Professors R. Butin, E. M. Grice, A. V. W. 
Jackson, M. L. Margohs, A. T. Olmstead, and D. M. Robinson 
for drafts upon their skilled knowledge; to Doctors C. D. Benja- 
min, H. S. Gehman, and M. J. Wyngaarden, for the pleasure as 
well as profit I have had in co-operative studies with them ; and 
very particularly to Doctor Gehman for his generous assistance 
in reading much of the manuscript and all the proof. And I 
acknowledge my obUgations to the publishers for their patience 
with my delay and with a volume that is swollen beyond original 
expectations. j^^^^g ^^ Montgomery. 

December 15, 1926. 










§ I. The Contents i 

§ 2. Early Testimony to the Book and Its Place in the 

Canon 2 

§ 3. Literary Divisions of the Book 5 

§ 4. a. Apocryphal Additions 8 

b. Later Pseudepigrapha 10 

c. Legends 10 


§ 5. The Hebrew-Aramaic Text 11 

§ 6. The Hebrew 13 

§ 7. The Aramaic 15 

§ 8. Foreign Words 20 

a. Words from the Akkadian 20 

b. Persian Words 21 

c. Greek Words 22 

§ 9. The Literary Form of the Book 23 


§ 10. Summary according to Languages 24 

a. Greek 24 

(i) The Old Greek or 'Septuagint' .... 25 

(2) The Theodotionic Group 26 

(3) The Versions of Aquila and Symmachus . 27 

(4) The Medleval .... 29 

b. Latin 29 

(i) The Old Latin 29 

(2) The Vulgate 3a 




c. Coptic 32 

d. Syriac 33 

e. Aeabic 34 

/. Other Languages 34 

§ II. The Old Greek Version 35 

§ 12. Theodotion 39 

a. The Greek B-Group 39 

b. The Sahidic-Coptic 42 

c. The Old Latin 43 

§ 13. Theodotion: Triumph over the Old Greek; Age; 

The Problem of 'Ur-Theodotion' 46 

§ 14. The Hexaplaric Revisions: Or^ (V 62 147) and OrC 

(the A- Group, Arabic, Bohairic) 51 

§ 15. The Lucianic Revision 53 

§ 16. The Old Syriac Version 55 

§ 17. Jerome's Version: the Vulgate 56 

§ 18. Method and Use of the Textual Apparatus . . 56 


§ 19. The Historical Data 57 

a. The Appearance of the Book in Literature . 58 

b. The Philological Evidence 58 

c. The Historical Objective of the Book: the 

Four Monarchies 59 

d. Darius the Mede 63 

e. Belshazzar 66 

/. The Third Year of Jehoiakim; the CHALDiEANS, 

ETC 72 

g. The Book as an Apocryphon 76 

§ 20. The Theology of the Book and Its Place in Jew- 
ish Religion 78 

§ 21. The Problem of the Unity of the Book and of 

the Two Languages 88 

a. The Two Books, the Stories and the Visions 88- 

b. The Problem of the Two Languages ... 90 

c. Further Divisive Theories 92 

d. The Dating of the Two Sections .... 96 

e. Losses and Additions to the Original Book . 99 
§ 22. An Appreciation of the Literary and Religious 

Character of the Book 100 

a. The Stories 100 

b. The Visions 102 

J 23. Review of the Literature on Daniel . . . . 105 





Chapter i : The Education of Daniel and His Three Com- 
panions 113 

Chapter 2: Nebuchadnezzar's Dream and Its Interpre- 
tation BY Daniel i3'j 

Note on the Symbolism of the Image and Its Interpre- 
tation 185 

Chapter 3: The Golden Image and th^-^ Three Confessors 193 

Chapter 4: Nebuchadnezzar's Madness 220 

Note on the Translation of ^ 247 

Chapter 5: Belshazzar's Feast 249 

Note on the Translation of C5 267 

Chapter 6: Daniel in the Lions' Den 26S 

Note on the Translation of ^ 280 


Chapter 7: The Vision of the Beasts and the Man . 282 

Note on 'Son of Man' 317 

Chapter 8: The Vision of the Ram and the Buck . . 324 

Textual Note on 8"'^- ^ 356 

Note on VSS at 8"'' 358 

Chapter 9: The Revelation of the Seventy Weeks . 358 

Note on the Interpretation of the Seventy Weeks 390 
Note on the Greek Texts of 9=^-" 

(i) OF (S 401 

(2) OF THE Texts of 402 

Chapters 10-12: The Final Revelation 404 

Note on the Princes and Angels in c. 10 . . . . 419 

Note on the Interpretation of c. ii 468 


I. Index Variorum 481 

II. Philological Indexes 484 

III. Literary References, Biblical, etc 486 


The following select Bibliography includes books and articles bearing 
upon the whole of Daniel or upon general questions involved. Reference is 
made ad locos to special monographs. There are included works of philo- 
logical and historical bearing upon the subject. Titles not directly known 
to the author are Hsted on account of their worth or historical interest; 
these are marked with an asterisk. 

Aben Ezra: text in Mikraoth Gedoloth. 

Abrabanel:* Comm. on Dan., for edd. s. Rosenmiiller, p. 39. 

AcHELis, H.: Hippolytstudien, TU, vol. i, Heft 4. 

Albertus Magnus:* Commentarius in Danielem, Lyons, 1651, etc. 

Anderson, R.: Daniel in the Critics' Den (answer to Professor Driver and 

Dean Farrar), n.d. 
Aphrem Syeus: Comm. on Dan., Roman ed., vol. 2, 1740. 
Apollinaris: excerpts of comm. in Mai, q.v. 

Auberlen, K. a.: Der Prophet Daniel u. die Offenbarung Johannis, 1854. 
AucraNCLOSS, W. S.: The Book of Daniel Unlocked, N. Y., 1905. 

Ball, C. J.: Daniel and Babylon, Expositor, 19 (1920), 235. 

Bar, S.: Libri Danielis Ezrae et Nehemiae, 1882. 

Bardenhewer, O.: Des heiligen Hippolytus von Rom Commentar zum 

Buche Daniel, 1877. 

* Polychronius . . . ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Exegese, 1879. 

Bar Hebr^us:* J. Freimann, SchoUen zu Dan., 1892; * A. Heppner, 

Scholien z. Ruth u. z. d. apok. Zusatzen zu Dan., 1888. 
Barth, J.: Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen, 1889, 1891 

(= Nhg). 
Barton, G. A.: The Composition of the Book of Daniel, JBL 1898, 62 

(rev. by Konig, Theol. Literaturblatt, 1908, no. 46). 
Bauer, H., and Leander, P.: Historische Grammatik der hebraischen 

Sprache, vol. i, 1922. 
Bayer, E.: Danielstudien, /Vlttestamentliche Abhandlungen (Miinster i. W.) 

3, Heft 5, 191 2. 
Behrmann, G.: Das Buch Daniel, in Nowack's HK, 1894 (rev. by Roth- 
stein, DLZ Nov. 28, Dec. 26, 1896). 
Benjamin, C. D.: Collation of Holmes-Parsons 23 (Venetus)-62-i47 in 

Daniel from Photographic Copies, JBL 44 (1925), 303-326. 
Bergstrasser, G.: Hebriiische Grammatik (announced as ed. 29 of Gese- 

nius' Grammatik), pt. I, 1918. 
Bertiioldt, L.: Daniel, 1806. 
Bertholet, a.: s. under Stade. 



Bevan, a. a.: a Short Commentary on the Bk, of Dan., 1892 (rev. by 

Nestle, LCB 1892, no. 37). 
Bevan, E.: House of Seleucus, 2 vols., 1902. 

Jerusalem under the High-Priests, 1904. 

Bianchini, J.: Dissertationes, on Chigi text; s. Int. §10, a (i), 

Bleek, F.: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, edd. 4 and 5 (1886) by 

J. Wellhausen. 

* tJber Verfasser u. Zweck des Buches Dan., Theol. Zts., 1822, 171. 

* Die mess. Weissagungen im Buche Dan., Jahrb. f . deutsche Theologie, 

i860, 47. 
Blxidau, a. : De alexandrinae interpretationis libri Danielis indole critica et 

hermeneutica, Miinster i. W., 1891 

Die alexandrinische tjbersetzung des Buches Daniel und ihr Verhalt- 

niss zum massorethischen Text = BibUsche Studien ii, Heft 2-3, Frei- 
burg i. B., 1897. 

Die Apokalypse und Theodotions Danieliibersetzung, Theol. Quartal- 

schrift, 1897, p. I. 

BocHART, S.: Omnia opera, Leyden, 171 2. 

BoNWETSCH, G. N.: Studien zu den Kommentaren Hippolyts zum Buche 
Daniel und Hohenliede, TU i (1897). 

and AcHELis, H.: ed. Hippolytus' Comm. to Dan., GCS i, 1897. 

Bouche-Leclercq, a. : Histoire des Lagides, 4 vols., 1903 seq. 

Histoire des Seleucides, 1913. 

Bousset, W. : Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentHchen Zeitalter^, 

BouTFLOWER, C: In and Around the Bk. of Dan., London, 1923 (c/. Rowley, 

The Belsh. of Dan. and of History, Exp. Sept., Oct., 1924). 
Breithaupt, J. F. : R. Salomonis Jarchi [ = Rashi] commentarius hebraicus 

in Prophetas [etc.] latine versus, Gottingen, 1713. 
Briggs-Driver-Brown : A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the O. T., 1891- 

1906 (= BDB). 
Brockelmann, C: Lexicon Syriacum, 1895, ed. 2, 1923 seq. {Lex). 

Grundiss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, 

2 vols., 1908-1913 (= VG). 

Broughton, H.:* Daniehs visiones chaldaicae et ebraeae, London, 1596. 

Brown, C. R.: An Aramaic Method, 1886 (in Harper's series). 

Buhl, F.: ed. Gesenius' Heb. u. Aram. Handworterbuch^*, 1915 (= GB), 

Daniel, PRE^, 1898. 

BuRKiTT, F. C.: Texts and Versions, in EB. 

Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, London, 1913. 

BuTTENWiESER, M.: Apocalyptic, JE. 

BuxTORF, John: Lexicon chaldaicum, talmudicum et rabbinicum (ed. by 

his son), Basel, 1640. 
BuzY, D.: Les symboles de Daniel, RB 15, 403. 


Calmet, a. :* Commentaire litteral sur tous les livres de I'Ancien et du Nou- 

veau Testament, 1707, etc. 
Calvin, John:* Praelectiones in librura prophetiarum Danielis I. Budaei et 

C. lonuillae labore et industria exceptae, Geneva, 1561 (Eng. tr., Edinb., 

Caspari, C: Zur Einfiihrung in d. Buch Dan., Lpzg., 1869. 
Ceriani, a.: Codex syrohexaplaris ambrosianus photolithographice editus 

= Monumenta sacra et profana, vol. 7, 1874 (rev. by Nestle, TLZ 1876, 

Charles, R. H.: A Critical History of the Future Life in Israel, Judaism, 
and Christianity, 1910. 

ed. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 vols., 

1913 (= Apoc). 

Book of Daniel, New Century Bible, n.d. 

Religious Development between the Old and the New Testaments, 


CoccEius (Cock), J.: Observata ad Danielem, Leyden, 1666. 

Collins, A.:* The Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered, 1726. 

Cooke, G. A.: A Text-Book of North Semitic Inscriptions, Oxford, 1903 

(= NSI). 
Cornelius a Laplde: Commentarii in Scripturam Sacram, Lyons, 1885. 
Cornell, C. H.: Einleitung in das A. T." 1892 (Eng. tr. 1907). 
Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum, 1881 seq. (= CIS). 
Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, 1866565'. (= CSEL), 
CoRRODi:* Freimiithige Versuche liber verschiedene in Theologie u. bibl. 

Kritik einschlagende Gegenstiinde, 1783. 
Cowley, A.: Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., 1923 (= AP); 

also s. under Sayce. 
CozzA, J.: Sacrorum Bibliorum vetustissima fragmenta graeca et latina, 

Rome, 1867-77 (s- Int. §10, a). 
Creelman, H.: An introduction to the O.T. Chronologically Arranged, 

N. Y., 1917. 
Critici sacri, editor Cornelius Bee (London, 1660), Amsterdam, 1698. 
Curtis, E. L.: Daniel, DB, 1898. 

Dalman, G.: Worte Jesu, Lpzg., 1898 (also Eng. tr., Scribner's). 

Grammatik d. judisch-palastinensischen Aramaisch-, 1905 (= Gr.). 

Aramaisch-neuhebriiisches Handworterbuch zu Targum, Talmud u. 

Midrasch-, 1923 (= Uwb.). 

Davidson, Samuel: Introduction to the O.T., vol. 3, 1863. 
Deane, H.: Daniel, his Life and Times, London, 1888. 

Daniel, in ElUcott's Old Testament Comm. 

Delitzsch, Franz: Daniel, in PRE edd. i. 2. 

Delitzsch, Friedrich: Philological Contributions to Bar's text, pp. vi-xii. 



Delitzsch, Friedrich: Assyrische Grammatik, 1889 (= Gr.). 

Assyrisches Handworterbuch, 1896 (= Hwh.). 

Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im A. T., 1920. 

De Wette, W. : Lehrbuch d. . , . Einleitung in die Bibel Alten und Neuen 

Testamentes, ed. 4, 1845. 
DoLD, A.: Konstanzer altlateinische Propheten- und Evangelienbruch- 

stiicke, = Texte u. Arbeiten herausgegeben dutch die Erzabtei Beuron, 

I Abt., Ilefte 7-9, Lpzg., 1923. 
Dougherty, R. P.: Nabonidus and Belshazzar (to appear in YOS). 
Driver, G. R. : The Aramaic of the Book of Daniel, JBL 1926, 110-119. 
Driver, S. R.: Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, ed. 10, 

1900, N. Y. = ed. 6, 1897; also an ed. 8, 1909. 

A Treatise on the Tenses in Hebrew^, 1892. 

Daniel, in CBS, 1900, last imprint 1922. 

Duval, R.: Traite de grammaire syriaque, 1881 (= GS). 

Ehrlich, a. B.: Randglossen zur hebraischen Bibel, vol. 7, 1914, pp. 126- 

155 on Dan. 
EicHHORN, J. G.: Einleitung in das A. T.^ 1823-25. 
Elliott, E. B.: Horae apocalypticae, London, 1862 (vol. 4 contains history 

of interpretation). 
l'Empereur, C.:* ed. with tr. of Ben Yachya's comm., Amsterdam, 1633. 
d'Envieu, J. F.: Le Hvre du prophete Daniel, 4 vols., Paris, 1888-91. 
Eusebius: Demonstratio evangehca, ed. Gaisford, 1852 (Eng. tr. by Ferrar, 


Praeparatio evangelica, ed. Gifford, 1903. 

EWALD, H.: Daniel, in Die Propheten d. Alten Bundes-, vol. 3, 1868 (Eng. 
tr. 1881, vol. s). 

Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch der hebraischen Sprache', 1870. 

Fabricius, J. A.: Codex pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti, Hamburg, 

Farrar, F. W.: The Book of Dan., in Expositor's Bible, 1895. 
Field, F.: Origenis hexaplorum quae supersunt, 1875. 
Fuller, J. M.: Daniel, in the Speaker's Commentary, 1876. 

Bk. of Dan. in the Light of Recent Discoveries, Exp., March, June, 


Gall, A. von: Die Einheitlichkeit des Buches Daniel, 1895. 

Galle, a. F.: Daniel avec commentaires de R. Saadia, Aben-Ezra, Raschi, 

etc., et variantes des versions arabe et syriaque, Paris, 1900. 
Gebhardt, O. von: Graecus Venetus, Lpzg., 1875 (rev. by Kamphausen, 

TSK, 1876, 577). 
Gehman, H. S.: The "Polyglot" Arabic Text of Daniel and Its Affinities, 

JBL 44 (1925), 327-352. 


Geier, M.: Praelectiones academicae in Danielem prophetam (1667), Lp3g., 

Gesenius, \V.: s. under Briggs-Driver-Brown, Buhl, Kautzsch. 
GiNSBURG, C. D.: Hebrew Bible, London, 1894. 

Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, 

London, 1897 (= Int.). 

GiRON, N.: for monographs on OAram. texts s. Int., §7, n. 2. 

Graetz, H.: Beitriige zur Sach- u. Wortererklarung des Buche3 Daniel, 

MGWJ 20 (1S71), 339-352, 385-406, 433-449- 
Graf, C. H.:* Daniel, in Schenkel's Bibellexicon, 1861. 
Die griechischen christUchen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 

1897 seq. (= GCS). 
Griesinger, G. F.:* Neue Ansicht der Aufsatze im Buche Daniel, Stuttgart, 

Grotius, H.: Annotationes in Vetuset Novum Testamentum, London, 1727. 
Gxjnkel, H.: Schopfung u. Chaos in Urzeit u. Endzeit, 1895 (s. Giesebrecht, 

GGA 1895, 596^., Wellhausen, in Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten, 6 (1899), 215- 

249, and Gunkel in reply ZWT 42 (1899), 581-611). 

Hahn, H. a.: AavfJjX xa-ri Toii; ip5o:j.Tf)xovTa e codice chisiano, etc., Lpzg., 

Hamburger, J.: Daniel, in his Real-Encyclopadie f. Eibel u. Talmud, vol. i, 

1870, also on the bk., p. 920. 
Hatch, E., and Redpath, H. A.: A Concordance to the Septuagint, 1S92- 

97, Oxford. 
Haupt, p.: Notes to Kamphausen in SBOT. 
Havernick, H. a. C: Commentar iiber das Buch Dan., 1832. 

Neue kritische Untersuchungen iiber d. B. Dan., Hamburg, 1838. 

Hebbelynck:* De auctoritate libri Danielis, Lowen, 1S87. 

Heller, B.: Das Traumerraten im Buche Daniel, ZATW 1925, 243-246. 

Hengstenberg, E. W.: Authentie des Daniel, 1831. 

Hilgenfeld, a.:* Die Propheten Esra u. Daniel, 1863. 

Hippo LYTUS: s. under Bonwetsch. 

HiTZiG, F.: Das Buch Daniel, 1850. 

Holm, A.: Griechische Geschichte, vol. 4, 1894. 

Holmes, R., and Parsons, J.: Vetus Testamentum graecum cum variis 

lectionibus, 4 vols., 1 798-1827, Oxford. 
HoLSCHER, G.: Die Entstehung des Buches Dan., TSK 1919, 113. 
Huhn, E.: Die messianische Weissagungen, 1899, vol. i, §30. 

Ibn Janah: The Book of Hebrew Roots, ed. A. Neubauer, 1875. 

Jackson, F. J. Foakes, and Lake, K.: The Beginnings of Christianity, 
vol. I, London, 1920 (with contributions by Montefiore, G. F. Moore). 
Jahn, G.: Das Buch Daniel nach der Septuaginta hergestellt, 1904. 


Jastrow, Marcus: Dictionary of the Targumim, etc., 1903. 

Jastrow, Morris: Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, 1905 seq. 

LE Jay, G. M.: Biblia Sacra polyglotta, Paris, 1645. 

Jephet ibn 'Ali: Comm. on Daniel, ed. D. S. Margoliouth, in Anecdota 

Oxoniensia, 1889. 
Jerome: In Danielem prophetam, ed. Vallarsi, vol. 5, 1768. 
JotJON, P.: Grammaire de I'Hebreu biblique, Rome, 1923. 
Junius, F.:* Expositio prophetae Danielis, Heidelberg, 1593. 

Kahle, p.: Masoreten des Ostens, 1913. 

Ed. texts with Babylonian punctuation in Strack's Grammatik. 

Sections on Bab. punctuation in Bauer-Leander's Grammatik. 

Kamphausen, A.: Das Buch Daniel u. die neuere Geschichtsforschung, 1893. 

Daniel, in SBOT, 1896. 

Daniel, in EB, 1899. 

Kautzsch, E.: Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramaischen, 1884 (rev. by Nol- 
deke, GGA, 1884, 1014-23). 

Wilhelm Gesenius' Hebraische Grammatik-*, 1896 (= GK); Eng. tr., 

by A. Cowley. 

Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des A. T., 2 vols., 1900. 

Die Aramaismen im Alten Testament, 1902. 

Keil, C. F.: Biblischer Commentar iiber den Propheten Daniel, 1869. 
Kennedy, J.: The Book of Daniel from the Christian Standpoint, London, 

Kennicott, B.: Vetus Testamentum hebraicum cum variis lectionibus, 2 

vols., 1776, 1780, Oxford. 
Kent, C. F.: Sermons, Epistles and Apocalypses of Israel's Prophets, 

N. Y., 1910. 
KiRCHNER, G. S. L.:* Die Hauptweissagungen des Buches Daniel, 1898. 
KiRMSS, H. G.:* Commentatio historico-critica exhibens descriptionem et 

censuram recentiam de Danielis Ubro opinionum, 1828. 
KiTTEL, R.: Biblia hebraica, ed. i, 1905, ed. 2, 1912. 
Kliefoth, T.: Das Buch Daniel, 1868. 
Knabenbauer, J.: Commentarius in Danielem prophetam Lamentationes 

et Baruch, Paris, 1 891, in Cursus Scripturae Sacrae. 
Konig, E.: Historisch-kritische Lehrgebaude der hebraischen Sprache, 2 

vols., 1881, 1885 (= Lgb.). 

Syntax der hebraischen Sprache, 1897 (= Syn.). 

Hebriiisches und aramaisches Worterbuch zum A. T., ed. i, 1910, ed. 

3, 1922 (= Hii'b.). 

■ Die messianischen Weissagungen des A. T., 1923. 

Theologie des A. T.^, 1923. 

Kranichfeld, W. p.: Das Buch Daniel, 1868. 

Kuenen, a.: Hist.-kritische Einleitung in die Biicher des A. T., 2 vols., 


Lambert, M.: SsinnDD in Cahana's, B'niB n.d. 

Lengerke, C. von.: Das Buch Daniel, 1835. 

Levias, a. : A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom contained in the Babylonian 

Talmud, Cincinnati, 1900. 
Levy, J. : Neuhebraisches und chaldaisches Worterbuch iiber die Talmudim 

und Midraschim, 1876 seq. 
LiDZBARSKi, M.: Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik, 1898 (= NE). 

Ephemeris fiir semitische Epigraphik, 3 vols., 1902-15 (= Eph.). 

Altaramaische Urkunden aus Assur, 192 1. 

Mandaische Liturgien (including Luting's Qolasta), 1920. 

LiGHTFOOT, John (1602-1675): Works, ed. Pitman, 12 vols., 1825. 
LoHR, M. : Textkritische Vorarbeiten zu einer Erklarung des Buches Daniel, 

ZATW 189s, 75-io3> 193-225; 1896, 17-39. 

ed. critical apparatus in Kittel's Bible. 

LowTH, Wm.: Commentary upon the Prophecy of Daniel and the Twelve 

Minor Prophets, 1726. 
Luther, M.: Die Bibel, print of the National-Bibelgesellschaft. 
* Auslegung des Propheten Daniel (compilation of three works, in 

Walch's ed., vol. vi; for bibUography s. Rosenmiiller, p. 44). 
LuzzATTO, S. D.: Grammatik der bibUsch-chaldiiischen Sprache und des 

Idioms des Thalmud Babli, 1873. 

Macler, F.: Les apocalypses apocryphes de Daniel, Paris, 1895. 

L'Apocalypse arabe de Daniel, Paris, 1904. 

Mahaffy, J. P.: The Empire of the Ptolemies, 1895. 

Mai, a.: Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e vaticanis codicibus edita, 
2 vols., 1825-31; vol. I contains Polychronius and commentarii vari- 
orum on Daniel. 

^DE MaItres, S.) : Daniel secundum Septuaginta ex tetraplis Origenis, Rome, 

Maldonat, J. :* Commentarius in Jeremiam, Ezechielen, Danielem, Leyden, 

Manchester, George, Duke of:* Times of Daniel, Chronological and 
Prophetical, 1849. 

Margoliouth, D. S.: s. under Jephet. 

Margolis, M. L.: Lehrbuch der aramiiischen Sprache des babylonischen 
Talmuds, 19 10. 

Marsham, John:* Canon chronicus, Frankfurt, 1697. 

Marti, K.: Daniel, in Kautzsch, Die Heiligen Schriften des A. T., 1894. 

Das Buch Daniel, 1901, in Marti's KHC. 

Kurzgefasste Grammatik der biblisch-aramaischen Sprache, ed. i, 1896 

(rev. by Noldeke, LCB 1896, 702, by Rahlfs, TLZ 1896, 585), ed. 2, 191 1 
(ed. 3*, 1925). 

Maurer, F.: Commentarius grammaticus criticus in Vetus Testamentum, 
vol. 2, Eze., Dan., Lpzg., 1838. 


McCowN, C. C. : Hebrew and Egyptian Apocalyptic Literature, in Harvard 

Theol. Rev. i8 (1925), 357-411. 
Meinhold, J.:* Die Komposition des Buches Daniel, 1884 (Diss.). 

Beitrage zur Erklarung des Buches Daniel, 1888 (rev. by Budde, TLZ 

Dec. 29, 1888). 

Das Buch Daniel, 1889, in Strack and Zockler's Comm. 

Meissner, B.: Babylonien und Assyrien, 2 vols., 1920-25. 
Melanchthon, p.:* Commentarius in Danielem prophetam, 1543. 
Merx, a.: Cur in libro Danielis iuxta hebraeam aramaea adhibita sit dia- 

lectus, 1865. 
Meyer, E.: Geschichte des Altertums, vol. 3, 1901. 

Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums, vol. 2, 1921 (ed. 4-5, 1925). 

Michaelis, C. B.: Uberiorcs annotationes philologico-exegeticae in liagio- 

graphos Veteris Testamenti, Daniel in vol. 3, Halle, 1720. 
Michaelis, J. D.: Orientalische und e.xegetische Bibliothek, 1771 seq. 

Neue or. u. ex. Bibliothek, 1786 scq. 

Supplementa ad lexica hebraica, n.d. 

Reprint of de Maitres, Daniel secundum Septuaginta, Gottingen, 1773, 

Michaelis, J. H.: Biblia hebraica ex aliquot MSS, etc., Magdeburg, 1720. 
Migne, J. P.: Patrologia latina, 1878 seq. (= PL). 

Patrologia graeca, 1886 seq. (= PG). 

Milfraoth Gedoloth (Hebrew title): Warsaw ed., vol. 6, 1874. 

Mills, L. H.: Avesta Eschatology compared with the Book of Daniel and 

Revelation, 1908. 
Moffatt, James: The Old Testament, a New Translation, 2 vols., 1924-25. 
Mommsen, T.: Romische Geschichte', vol. 5, 1885. 
Montgomery, J. A.: Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur, Philadelphia, 


The Ilcxaplaric Strata in the Greek Texts of Daniel, JBL 44 (1925), 


MuLLER, C: Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, 1841 seq. 
Musaeus, J.: Scholae in prophetas Danielem Micham et Joelem, 17 19 

Nestle, E.: Bibeliibersetzungen, in PRE'. 

Marginalien und Materialien, 1893 {Marg., ref. to first part). 

s. under Tischendorf. 

Neubauer, a.: s. under Ibn Jan^h. 

Newton, Sir Isaac: Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the 
Apocalypse of St. John, 1732, etc. (also Lat. tr., Amsterdam, 1737); an 
ed. from 'unpublished MSS.' by W. Whitia, Daniel and the Apocalypse, 
London, 1922. 

Nicolas de Lyra:* Commentary, in Migne s Cursus completus Scripturae 
Sacrae, vol. 20. 


NoLDEKE, T.: Mandaische Grammatik, 1875 (= MG). 

Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik^, 1898 (= 5G); Eng. tr. by Crichton, 

Compendious Syriac Grammar, London, 1904. 

Neue Beitrage zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, 1910 (= NBSS). 

Oecolampadius, J.:* In Danielem libri duo, Basel, 1530. 

Pereira (Pererius), B.:* Commentariorum in Danielem prophetam libri 
xvi, Rome, 1586. 

Perles, F.: iVnalekten zur Textkritik des A. T., ed. i, 1895, ed. 2, 1922. 

Philippe, E.:* Daniel (prophet and book), in Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de 
la Bible, 2, coll. 1 247-1 283. 

PoGNON, H.: Inscriptions s^mitiques de la Syrie, etc., 1907-08. 

PoLANUS, A.:* In Danielem . . . commentarius, Basel, 1606. 

Pcle, Matthew: Synopsis criticorum, vol. 3, 1694, Frankfurt. 

PoLYCHRONius : s. Under Mai. 

Porter, F. C: The Messages of the Apocalyptical Writers, N. Y., 1905. 

Powell, H. H. : The Supposed Hebraisms in the Grammar of Biblical Ara- 
maic, Univ. of Calif. Publications, vol. i, 1907. 

Preiswerk, FL: Der Sprachenwcchsel im Buche Daniel, Berne Diss., 1902 
(rev. by Meinhold, TLZ 1904, 353). 

Preuschen, E.: Handworterbuch zu den Schriften des N. T., 1910. 

Prince, J. D.: A Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Lpzg., 1899. 

PusEY, E. B.: Daniel the Prophet (ed. i, 1864), ed. 2, 1868. 

Rahlfs, a.: Verzeichniss der griechischen Handschriften des A. T., vol. 2 of 

his Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens, 1914. 
Ranke, E.: Monographs on OLat. texts, s. Int. §10, b (i). 
'Rashi' (R. Solomon b. Isaac): text in Mikraoth Gedoloth; s. under 

Rawlinson, G.: The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern 

World, ed. 2, Chicago. 
Reckendorf, H.: Arabische Syntax, 1921. 
Reuss, E.: La Bible, Traduction nouvelle avec introduction et com- 

mentaires, vol. 7, 1879 = Das A. T., vol. 7, 1894. 
RiESSLER, P.: Das Buch Daniel, 1899. 

Rosenmuller, E. F. C: Scholia in Vetus Testamentum, pt. 10, 1832. 
DE Rossi, J. B.: Variae lectiones Veteris Testamenti, 4 vols., 1784-88, and 

supplement, Scholia critica in V. T. libros, 1798, Parma. 

Saadia: s. under Spiegel. Text of Pseudo-Saadia in Mikraoth Gedoloth. 
Sabatier, p.: Latinae vcrsiones antiquae seu Vetus Italica, Rome, 1751 seq. 
Sachau, E.: Aramaische Papyrus und Ostraka, 1911 (= APO). 
Sanctius, C.:* Commentarius in Danielem prophetam, Lyons, 1612. 


Sayce, a. H., and Cowley, A.: Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan, 1906 

(= APA). 
ScHEFTELOWiTZ, I.: Arisches im A. T., Konigsberg Diss., 1901. 

Die altpersische Religion und das Judentum, 1920. 

ScHOTTGEN, C.: Horae hebraicae et talmudicae, 2 vols., 1733, 1742, Dresden 

and Lpzg. 
ScHRADER, E.: (Keilinschriften und das A. T.-) = Eng. tr. by Whitehouse 

The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, 2 vols., 1888 

( = COT) ; also s. under Zimmern. 
ScHULTENS, A.: Opera minora, Leyden, 1769; pp. 320-327 Animadversiones 

philologicae in Danielem. 
ScHULTHESS, F.: Lexicon syropalastinum, 1903. 

and LiTTMANN, E.: Grammatik des christlich-palastinischen Ara- 

maisch, 1924. 

ScHtJRER, E.: Geschichte des judischen Volkes', 3 vols., 1904-09. 
Sellin, E.: Introduction to the Old Testament, 1923 (Eng. tr.). 
Sinker, R.: Daniel, in Temple Bible. 
Smith, R. Payne: Thesaurus syriacus, 3 vols., 1879 seq. 

* Daniel i-vi, an Exposition, 1886. 

SoDERBLOM, N.: La vie future d'apr^s le Mazdeisme, 1901. 

Sola, J. M. :* La profecia de Daniel. 

Spiegel, H.: Saadia al-Fajjumi's arabische Danielversion, Berne Diss., 1906. 

Stade, B.: Lehrbuch der hebraischen Grammatik, 1879. 

Biblische Theologie des A. T.; vol. 2, 1911, by A. Bertholet. 

Stevenson, W. B.: Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic, 1924. 
Strack, H. L.: Einleitung in das A. T.^, 1906. 

Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramaischen*, 1921 (rev. by Laible, Theol. 

LB, 1922, 90, Lidzbarski, TLZ, 1922, 127; earlier ed. rev. by Noldeke, 
LCB 1896, 304). 

Strossmann, G.:* Die Erlebnisse und Geschichte des Propheten Daniel, 

Stuart, Moses: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Boston, 1850. 
SwETE, H. B.: The Old Testament in Greek, 3 vols., 1887 seq., ed. 2, 1895 


An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 1900. 

Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, 2d 

Series, 1897 seq. (= TU). 
Texts and Studies, Cambridge, 1893 seq. (= TS). 
Thackeray, H. St. John: Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, vol. i, 


The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, 192 1. 

Thayer, J. H.: A Greek-Enghsh Lexicon of the New Testament, N. Y., 


Thiefenthal, p. F.:* Daniel explicatus, Paderborn, 1895 (rev, by Ryssel, 

TLZ 1895, 557). 
Thilo, M.: Die Chronologic des Danielbuches, pp. 43, Bonn, 1926. 
(Thomas Aquinas) : for In Danielem postillae attributed to him s. Int., §23. 
Thompson, J. E. H.: Daniel, in Pulpit Commentary, 1897. 
TiscHENDORP, C. : Biblia sacra latina Veteris Testament! Hieronymo inter- 

prete . . . testimonium comitatur Codicis Amiatini, Lpzg., 1873. 

Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX Interpretes, ed. 7 by Nestle, 2 

vols., 1887. 

TiSDALL, W. St. Clair: The Aryan Words in the Old Testament, JQR i, 
335/.; 2, 213/., 365/.; 4, 97/. 

Egypt and the Book of Daniel, Exp. 47 (1921), 340. 

ToRREY, C. C: The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, 
Beiheft to ZATW, 1896. 

Ezra Studies, Chicago, 1910. 

Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel, in Transactions of the Conn. 

Academy of Arts and Sciences, 15 (1909), 241 (= Notes, I). 

Stray Notes on the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra, JAOS 43 (1923), 229 

(= Notes, II). 

Venema, H.:* Dissertationes ad vaticinia Danielis emblematica (to cc. 2, 7, 

8), 1745. 

* Commentarius in Dan. cc. xi. 4-xii. 3, 1752. 

VoLZ, P.: Jiidische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba, 1903. 

Wald, S. G.:* Curarum in historiam textus Danielis specimen i, Lpzg., 1783. 

Walton, B.: Biblia Sacra polyglotta, London, ed. 1657. 

Weber, F.: Jiidische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud', 1897. 

Wellhausen, J.: s. under Bleek. 

Westcott, B. F.: Daniel, in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 1863. 

Wicks, H. J.: The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocryphal and Apoca- 
lyptic Literature, London, 191 5. 

Wilson, J. D.: Did Daniel write Daniel? N. Y., n.d. 

Wilson, R. D.: The Aramaic of Daniel, in Biblical and Theological Studies 
(Princeton Theol. Sem.), N. Y., 191 2. 

Studies in the Book of Daniel, N. Y., 191 7 (rev. by Paton, Am. Journ. 

Theol., 1919, 225, by Fullerton, Bull. W. Theol. Sem., Oct., 1918). 

The Book of Daniel and the Canon, Princeton Theol. Rev., 13 (1915), 


The Silence of Ecclesiasticus concerning Daniel, ib. 14, 448. 

The Title 'King of Persia' in the Scriptures, lb. 15, 90-145 (also. Titles 

of the Kings of Persia, Festschrift E. Sachau, 19 15). 

Apocalypses and the Date of Daniel, ib. 19, 529-545. 

Daniel not quoted, ib. 20, 57-68. 


Wilson, R. D.: Darius the Mede, ib. 177-211. 

The Origin of the Ideas of Daniel, ib. 21, 161-200. 

Iniiuence of Daniel, ib. 21, 337-371, 541-584. 

The Background of Daniel, ib. 22, 1-26. 

The Prophecies of Daniel, ib. 22, 377-401. 

Winer, G. B.: Chaldaische Grammatik', 1882 (ed. Fischer). 
Wright, C. H. H.: Daniel and his Critics, 1906. 

Daniel and his Prophecies, 1906 (Comm.). 

Wright, William: A Grammar of the Arabic Language', 2 vols., 1896-8. 
Wyngarden, M. J.: The Syriac Version of the Book of Daniel, Pennsylva- 
nia Thesis, Lpzg., 1923. 

Zimmern, H., and Winckler, H.: Die Keilinschriften und das A. T. (ed. 3 

of Schrader), 1905 (= KAT). 
ZoCKLER, O.: Daniel, In Lange's Theol.-homiletisches Bibelwerk, 1870, Eng. 

tr. in Schaff's Commentary by James Strong, N. Y., 1876. 
Zotenberg, H.: Geschichte Daniels (Persian text), in Merx, Archiv, vol. i, 

Zuendel, D. : Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die Abfassungszeit des Buches 

Daniel, i86i. 


Names of authors and works frequently cited, especially the commentators 
and philologians, have been abbreviated. In cases where a work is cited un- 
der the name of the author alone, the title is given in this Key in parentheses. 
Further abbreviations of titles are given under the authors' names in the 
Bibliography, or the abbreviation can easily be understood. It has not been 
deemed necessary to give here the customary abbreviations for Biblical and 
other books, nor those of common use in such an apparatus, grammatical 
and otherwise, and only a few such are recorded here. 

Abh.: Abhandlung(en). 

AEz. : Aben Ezra (comm.). 

AJA: American Journal of Archae- 

AJSL: American Journal of Se- 
mitic Languages and Literatures. 

Akk.: Akkadian ('Assyrian' lan- 

AP : Cowley, Aramaic Papyri. 

APA : Sayce and Cowley, Aramaic 

Aph. Syr.: Aphrem Syrus (comm.). 

APO : Sachau, Aramaische Papyrus. 

Aq.: Aquila. 

Arab.: Arabic. 

Aram.: Aramaic. 

Ass.: Assyrian. 

Aug.: Augustine. 

AV: 'Authorized Version,' King 
James' Bible, the modem text. 

BA : Beitriige zur Assyriologie. 

Bab.: Babylonian. 

Bar: edition of Heb. Bible. 

BDB: Briggs-Driver-Brown, He- 
brew Le.xicon. 

BDD: Bible Dictionaries. 

BE: Babylonian Expedition, Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania. 

Behr.: Behrmann (comm.). 

Bergstr.: Bergstrasser (Hebraische 

Bert(h).: Bertholdt (comm.). 
Bev.: Bevan (comm.). 
bk., bks.: book(s). 
BL: Bauer-Leander, Grammatik d. 

hebr. Sprache. 
Blud.: Bludau (d. alex. tjbersetzung 

d. B. Daniel). 
Boutflower (In and Around the Bk. 

of Dan.). 
Brock.: Brockelmann. 
BSira: The Heb. text of Ecclus. 
Euxt.: Buxtorf (Lexicon). 

c. : circa. 

c, cc: chapter(s). 

Calv.: Calvin (comm.). 

CBMich.: C. B. Michaelis (comm.). 

CBS: Cambridge Bible Series. 

Cha.: Charles (comm.). 

ChrPal.: Christian-Palestinian dia- 

Chr>'s.: Chrysostom (comm.). 

CIS: Corpus inscriptionum semiti- 

Clem. Alex.: Clement of Alexandria. 

Comm. : main text of this Commen- 




comm.: coinmentator(s), commen- 
tary (-ies). 

Com.: Cornill. 

COT: Schrader, Cuneiform Inscrip- 
tions and the O.T. 

CSEL: Corpus scriptorum ecclesi- 
asticorum latinorum. 

Cypr. : Cyprian. 

Dalm.: Dalman. 

DB: Hastings' Dictionary of the 

DCB : Dictionary of Christian Biog- 

Del.: Friedrich Delitzsch. 

de R. : de Rossi, critical apparatus. 

dittog.: dittograph(y). 

DLZ: Deutsche Litteraturzeitung. 

Dr.: Driver (comm.). 

EAram.: East Aramaic. 

EB : Encyclopaedia Biblica. 

ed., edd.: editor(s), edition(s). 

Ehr.: Ehrlich (Randglossen). 

Enc. Brit.: Encyclopaedia Britan- 

dEnv.: d'Envieu (comm.). 
Epiph.: Epiphanius. 
ERE: Encyclopaedia of Religion 

and Ethics. 
Eth.: Ethiopic. 
Eus.: Eusebius Pamphili. 
Ew.: Ewald (comm.). 
Exp. : The Expositor. 
Exp. T. : The Expository Times. 

Field: Field's Hexapla. 

vGall: von Gall (Einheitlichkeit d. 

B. Dan.). 
OB: Gesenius-Buhl: Heb. Hwb.i«. 
GCS : Die griechischen christlichen 

Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahr- 

Ges.: Gesenius. 

GGA : Gelehrte Anzeigen of the 

Gottingen Academy. 
Gin.: Ginsburg (ed. of Heb. Bible). 
GK: Gesenius-Kautzsch, He- 

braische Grammatik'^. 
Gr., Grr.: Greek; Greek version (s). 
Gr.: Grammar, Grammatik. 
Graetz: (Beitrage). 
GV: Luther's German Version. 

haplog.: haplograph(y). 

Hav.: Havernick (comm.). 

Heb.: Hebrew. 

Hengst.: Hengstenberg (Authentic) . 

Her.: Herodotus. 

Hipp.: Hippolytus (comm.). 

Hitz.: Hitzig (comm.). 

HP: Holmes-Parsons. 

HR: Hatch-Redpath, Concordance 

to the Septuagint. 
Hwb. : Handworterbuch. 

Iren.: Irenseus. 

J A : Journal asiatique. 

Jahn: (comm.). 

JAOS: Journal of the American 
Oriental Society. 

JAram. : Jewish- Aramaic dialect. 

Jastr.: Jastrow (Diet, of the Tal- 

JBL : Journal of Biblical Literature. 

JDMich.: J. D. Michaehs. 

JE: Jewish Encyclopedia. 

Jeph.: Jephet (comm.). 

Jer. : Jerome. 

Jos.: Josephus; + A J, Antiquitates 
Judaicae; -|- BJ, Bellum judai- 

JPOS : Journal of the Palestine Ori- 
ental Society. 

JQR: Jewish Quarterly Review, 
New Series. 

JRAS : Journal of the Royal Asiatic 



JTkSt.: Journal of Theological 

Jul. Afr.: Julius Africanus. 

Jun.: Junius (comm.). 

Just. M.: Justin Martyr. 

JV: 'Jewish Version,' i.e., The 
Holy Scriptures ace. to the Masso- 
retic Text, Philadelphia, 1917. 

Kamp.: Kamphausen (text in 

KAT: (Schrader-)Zunmem-Winck- 

ler, Keilinschriften u. d. A. T.'. 
Kau. : Kautzsch (Gramm.d.B Aram.) . 
KB: Schrader's KeilinschriftUche 

Ken. : Kennicott, critical apparatus. 
Kit.: Kittel (ed. of Hebrew Bible). 
Khef.: KUefoth (comm.). 
Knab.: Knabenbauer (comm.). 
Kon.: Konig. 
5r.: the^re. 

Kran.: Kranichfeld (comm.). 
Kt.: the Kttb. 

Lamb.: Lambert (comm.). 

Lat.: Latin. 

LCB : Literarisches Centralblatt. 

Lex(x).: lexicon, lexica. 

Lidz.: Lidzbarski. 

Lohr: critical apparatus in Kittel's 

' Bible. 

Lucif.: Lucifer Calaritanus. 

Luzz.: Luzzatto (grammar). 

Mar.: Marti (comm.; grammar cited 

by sections). 
Mass.: Massora, Massoretic. 
Maur.: Maurer (comm.). 
Mein.: Meinhold (comm.). 
MGWJ: Monatschrift fur Gc- 

schichte und Wissenschaft des Ju- 

Mich. : J. H. Michaelis (ed. of Heb. 


Midr.: Midrash. 
Moab.: Moabite. 
Moff.: Moffatt, Eng. tr. of Bible. 
MVAG: Mitteilungen d. Vorderasi- 
atischen Gesellschaft. 

Nab.: Nabataean. 

NE: Lidzbarski, Nordsemitische 

NHeb.: New Hebrew {i.e., post- 

Nold.: Noldeke. 

Notes: philological notes in this 

NSI : Cooke, North-Semitic Inscrip- 

NSyr. : New Syriac. 

N.T. : New Testament. 

OAram.: Old Aramaic. 

Occ: Occidental (Mass. tradition). 

OLat.: Old Latin {i.e., pre-Hiero- 

Olsh.: Olshausen. 
OLZ : Orientalistische Literaturzei- 

OPers.: Old Persian. 
Or.: Oriental (Mass. tradition). 
Or.: Origen. 
OSlav.: Old Slavonic. 
O.T.: Old Testament. 

PAboth: Pirke Aboth. 
Palm.: Palm3T:ene. 
pap(p).: papyrus, papyri. 
Pers.: Persian. 

PG: Migne, Patrologia graeca. 
Phoen.: Phoenician. 
PL : Migne, Patrologia latina. 
Pole (Synopsis criticorum). 
Polyb.: Polybius. 
Polych.: Polychronius. 
Pr.: Prince (comm.). 
PRE: Realcnzyklopiidie fiir prote- 
stantische Theologie und Kirche. 



PSBA : Proceedings of the Society 

of Biblical Archaeology. 
PSmith: Payne Smith (Thesaurus). 
PsSa.: Pseudo-Saadia (comm.). 

QS : Quarterly Statement of the 
Palestine Exploration Fund. 

Ra.: Rashi (comm.). 

RB : Revue biblique, New Series. 

rdg(s).: reading(s). 

ref.: reference. 

resp.: respectively. 

rev.: review. 

Riess.: Riessler (Das Buch Daniel). 

rt.: root. 

Rosen.: Rosenmiiller (comm.) 

RV: English Revision of AV, 1884. 

RW: RV + SV. 

Sa.: Saadia (Arab. tr.). 

Sab.: Saba^an. 

Sach.: Sachau. 

Sam.: Samaritan Aramaic. 

SBA : Sitzungsberichte, Berlin 

SBE: Sacred Books of the East. 
SBOT : Haupt's Sacred Books of the 

Schr.: Schrader. 

Schult.: Schultens (Opera minora). 
seq. : and following. 
Sib. Or.: SibyOine Oracles 
Str.: Strack (text; grammar cited by 

Stu.: Stuart (comm.). 
suppl.: supplet, -ent. 
SV: 'Standard Version,' American 

Revision of AV, 1901. 
s.v. : sub voce. 
Sym.: Symmachus. 
Syr.: Syriac. 

Talm.: Talmud. 
Targ. : Targum. 
Tert.: Tertullian. 

Test. XII Patr.: Testaments of the 

XII Patriarchs; Test. Jos. = Test. 

of Joseph, etc. 
Theod.: Theodotion. 
Theodt.: Theodoret. 
TLZ : Theologische Literaturzei- 

tr., trr.: translate, translation (s). 
Trem.: Tremellius (cited from Pole). 
TS : Texts and Studies. 
TSBA : Transactions of the Society 

of Biblical Archaeology. 
TSK : Theologische Studien und 

TU : Texte und Untersuchungen, 

Second Series. 

v., vv.: verse(s). 

var(r).: variant(s). 

vs.: versus. 

VS, VSS: (ancient) Version(s). 

WAram.: West Aramaic. 

WH: Westcott-Hort.N.T. in Greek. 

Wilson: R. D. Wilson (Studies in the 

Bk. of Dan.). 
Wright: C. H. H. Wright (Daniel 

and his Prophecies). 
WSem.: West Semitic. 
WZKM : Wiener Zeitschrift f iir die 

Kunde des Morgenlands. 

YOS: Yale Oriental Series. 

ZA : Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie. 
Zad. Frag.: Schechter's 'Zadokite 

Fragments,' vol. i. 
ZA TW : Zeitschrift fur die alttesta- 

mentliche Wissenschaft. 
ZDMG: Zeitschrift der Deutschen 

Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft. 
ZKR Inscr.: Pognon, Inscriptions 

semitiques, no. 86. 
ZNTW: Zeitschrift fiir die neu- 

testamentliche Wissenschaft. 



Zock.: Zockler (comm.). 
ZPT: Zeitschrift fur protestanti- 
sche Theologie. 

Zts.: Zeitschrift. 

ZWT: Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaft- 
liche Theologie. 


A: Codex Alexandrinus. 

A: Arabic Version. 

Aq.: Aquila. 

B : Codex Vaticanus. 

QI^ : Coptic-Bohairic Version. 

fflS: Coptic-Sahidic Version. 

c: text of the Chigi MS. 

d: Old Greek Version ('Septua- 


<gG: Gr. text. 

(&^: Syro-hexaplar text. 
Qi-ven . ' Graecus Venetus. ' 
?|: Hebrew- Aramaic text. 
h: text of Hippolytus. 

hP: Gr. text. 

hS: OSlav. text. 
H: Old Latin Version(s). 

5]Wng. Weingarten Fragments. 

IJwib; Wiirzburg Fragments. 
Lu.: Lucian. 

Jfl: Massoretic apparatus to 1|. 

iMB(ab); tiie Babylonian punctua- 

MP^: the Occidental tradition. 

iS&P': the Oriental tradition. 
Or*^: Constantinopolitan - Origenian 

text (A-group). 
OrP; Palestinian-Origenian text (V 

62 147). 
Q: Codex Marchalianus. 
&: Syriac Version. 
Sym.: Symmachus. 
V: Codex Venetus (= HP 23). 
3: Vulgate. 

B'^: Codex Amiatinus. 
V: Codex rescriptus Cryptoferra ten- 


0: Theodotion ( = 
wise defined.) 

B, unless other- 

The following symbols are also used: 

t indicates that all the cases in the Hebrew Bible are cited. 
* a theoretical form. 
+ a critical plus. 
II parallelism. 

> etymological process toward. 
<C etymological origin from. 

[ ] used to give context of word or words discussed. In the translation [ ] 
has bearing on the text of ?^, ( ) expresses an interpretative addition. 




The Book of Daniel is a composition partly in Hebrew, partly 
in Aramaic, found in the third place from the end of the Kethu- 
bim or Hagiographa, the third division of the Hebrew Bible. 
It purports to give the story of one Daniel who suffered the 
first exile under Nebuchadnezzar and lived in the Eastern Dia- 
spora. The story begins with the hero's youth, when he is a 
boy at school, and continues the story to an age when the 
promise of a life beyond the grave is a comfort (12"). The bk. 
is divided into two nearly equal portions (not coincident with 
the two languages). 

I. The first section presents six anecdotes of his life in com- 
pany with certain compatriots (one of the anecdotes being con- 
fined to the experiences of the latter) as a confessor of the Re- 
ligion and a seer of the future. 

C. I. Year 3 of Jehoiakim and on. The faithfulness of Dan. 
and three companions in their education at the Bab. court. 

C. 2. Year 2 of Nebuchadnezzar. Dan. interprets Neb.'s 
dream of a monstrous Image. 

C. 3. The martyr-constancy of his three companions in re- 
fusing to worship a golden Image. 

C. 4. Dan. interprets Neb.'s dream of a great Tree. 

C. 5. Last year of Belshazzar. Dan. interprets Belshazzar's 
vision of an Inscribing Hand. 

C. 6. His deliverance from the Lions' Den, whither he was 
cast for refusal to worship Darius. His subsequent elevation in 
the reigns of Darius and Cyrus. 

II. The second section details four visions granted to Daniel. 

C. 7. Year i of Belsh. A vision of the conflicts of four mon- 
strous Beasts, of the Fourth Beast and its Horns, and the The- 
ophany which introduces the divine dominion. 

C. 8. Year 3 of Belsh. A vision of the conflict of a Ram and 
a Buck and of the Little Horn of the latter's four horns, which 


grew great. The vision is expounded by the angel Gabriel as of 
the Medo-Persian and Greek empires, the latter to culminate in 
a blasphemous tyrant, whose end is foretold. 

C. 9. Year i of Darius. Dan.'s prayer for the restoration of 
Israel; the appearance of the angel to him and his exposition of 
the 'seventy years' of prophecy. 

CC. 10-12. Year 3 of Cyrus. In answer to Dan.'s pious ex- 
ercises undertaken for the boon of greater illumination, the angel 
again appears to him (lo-ii^^), and unrolls a panorama of 
Kingdoms and Kings culminating in a godless and inhuman ty- 
rant, whose end is depicted along with the transcendental vin- 
dication of saints and sinners (ii^''-i2^); with a supplementary 
confirmatory vision and a word of personal assurance to Dan. 
(12 5-"). 

It will be observed that parallel historical sequences are fol- 
lowed in the two sections, following a Jewish tradition of the 
progress of secular history: I. Neb., Belsh., Darius, the con- 
tinuance of the seer's career into the reign of Cyrus being de- 
noted i^S 6^^ ^2*^ ; II. Belsh. (two visions), Darius, Cyrus. 



The hero's name was given to the bk. with the usual tradi- 
tional implication that he was the author, a surmise which was 
naturally supported from 1 2*. The name, ^S'^Jl? was wide-spread 
in Sem. antiquity; s. at i*. It is also the name of an evidently 
traditional saint (^Sn) who is associated by Ezekiel with two 
other primitive worthies: 'Though these three men, Noah, 
Daniel and Job were in it (the land), they should deliver but 
their own souls by their righteousness,' 14^^- ^o; and, 28^, the 
Prince of Tyre is thus apostrophized: 'Behold, thou art wiser 
than Daniel, there is no secret thing they can hide from thee.' 
These passages written in the years 6 and 11 of the Exile {i.e., 
dating from 597) cannot refer to the youthful hero of our book, 
but to a figure of antique and cosmopolitan tradition, like the 
Noah-Utnapishtim of the Flood story and the Job of the Ara- 
bian steppes, one of the Wise of the East. If we seek an assimi- 
lation of the two Daniels it would be due to the fact that the 
writer most arbitrarily adopted the name of the otherwise un- 


sung sage of the past, even as Enoch, Noah, Baruch, Ezra were 
made titular authors of Apocryphal bks. But the hypothesis is 
unnecessary. The name was taken from living Jewish folk- 

There is then no reference to our Daniel as an historic person 
in the Heb. O.T., although his life is attributed by the bk. to 
the 6th cent. B.C. Nor is his name found in the list of Worthies 
presented by Ecclus. 44-50 (c. 200 B.C.), although the writer 
names the three other 'Major Prophets' and 'the Book of the 
Twelve,' i.e., the 'Minor Prophets.' The earliest allusions to, 
or citations from, our bk. appear in the Jewish literature of the 
2d cent. B.C.- There are many such in Enoch, of which the 
Dream- Visions, cc. 83-90, may go back to the days of Judas 

A section of the Sibylline Oracles, viz.: iv, 388-400, which 
dates back toward the middle of the same cent., certainly cites 
our bk.'s description, cc. 7, 8, of the godless tyrant; the passage 
is cited in Comm. at 7^-*. 

I Mac, composed at the end of the same cent., after the reign 
of John Hyrcanus, has many reminiscences of Dan. ; e. g., the 
citation of 'Abomination of Desolation,' i^ after d of Dan., 
and the specific allusion to the deliverance of the three com- 
panions of Dan., by name, and of Dan. ' in his perfectness,' 2" ^-j 
cf. Dan. 3^ Cf. a list of chief instances given by Wright, p. 65. 

' Traditionalist comm. differ in their treatment of the possible identification; 
some ignore it, e.g., Stu., Pusey; others insist that Eze.'s ref. is corroboration of the 
historicity of our hero and bk., so Heng., 70 J.; Keil, 25 /.; Wright, 48. It is idle to 
debate over appropriateness of the name, a fancy indeed which induced the story of 
Susanna, in which Daniel ('God-judges') did 'come to judgement,' with Shake- 
speare; or as though the judgments of God are the theme of the bk.; or as if a Pers. 
origin were to be sought, e.g., from OPers. ddnu, 'wise,' with Cheyne, Origin . . . 
of the Psalter, 105, note t. The name was of a type that rendered it available for 
angels, and so it appears for one of the fallen angels, En. 6', 6g^ and of an evil spirit 
in the Mandaic Ginza. 

' The innumerable correspondences between Dan. and the Chronicler (e.g., the 
prayers Dan. 9, Neh. 9) are insisted upon by Pusey (p. 355 /.) and others as proof 
of the priority of Dan. to Neh. Wright recognizes the weakness of this argumenta- 
tion. After accepting Pusey's argument, he proceeds to remark: "The true lines of 
'defense' of the Bk. of Dan. do not rest upon the foundations laid by Heng. or 
Pusey. . . . But the real defense . . . ought to a large extent to be based upon 
the internal evidence presented in the bk." For dependence of Dan.'s prayer on 
the Chronicler s. the extensive argument by the Catholic scholar Bayer in his 

' For a full list of these refl. s. Charles, Book of Enoch-, Index, p. 3 1 2. For a review 
of this literature s. Wright, c. 2. 


The Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, which was written 
about the same time, has many current citations; s. index in 
Charles, Eng. tr., p. 238. Jubilees, a bk. of the same age, has 
in common with Dan. the scheme of year-weeks. And the 
Apocryphal Baruch has, 11^-2", a mosaiclike resetting of the 
prayer in Dan. 9^-^^, s. §13. Also the Apocryphal Wisdom 3^ 
cites Dan. 12^, and gives, 3*, an interpretation of Dan. 7^^ The 
Psalms of Solomon, written after Pompey's death, cites Dan. 12^, 
a true Pharisaic theme. 

Schechter's Hebrew 'Fragments of a Zadokite Work' (mis- 
leadingly so called) is a product, probably or possibly, of an 
early 'Pharisaic' sect and of the 2d cent, b.c.^ Its parallelisms 
with Dan. have not been sufficiently remarked by Schechter, 
but the correspondences in terminology are very instructive as 
to its date. Note: p. 4 (Heb. text), 1. 4, 'those who stand up at 
the end of the days,' cf. Dan. 121^; p. 6, 1. 21, t^Tpn in^D'DD, cf. 
Q^iff-; p. 20, 1. 8, jT^^j; ''tmp = 7I8, etc.; p. 20, 1. 25, Til^S b 
nmnn ^1^:1 nX i:»'-lS = •'^f'nS n" (of value for interpretation 

of the latter); p. 20, 1. 26 /., msn^fj^ ^^^2 miH'' ^j;''trna b 

= n''nn •'V^trn?: n^^ and for the 'refining' cf. ii==^ i2i»; also cf. 
p. 20, 1. 28, with 9^^ 

The existence of the ' Septuagintal ' tr. of Dan., doubtless to 
be assumed for the 2d cent. B.C., and also of a ' pre-Theodotionic ' 
tr. prior to the N.T. further attests the immediate wide-spread 
authority of the bk.; s. §§ii ^. 

There is no question of the authoritative character of Dan. 
in the N.T. The name is mentioned but once and with the 
title of 'prophet,' Mt. 241^ (not in the approved text of the par- 
allel Mk. 1^^*). Heb. ii^^ f-,' stopped the mouths of lions (after ©), 
quenched the power of fire,' recalls the stories in cc. 3, 6. But 
the influence and language and the spirit of the bk. are powerful 

* In vol. I of his Documents of Jewish Sectaries, igio; also Charles, Apoc, vol. 2 
(appearing in earlier separate form); E. Meyer, 'Die Gemeinde des Neuen Bundes,' 
Ahhandlungen of the Berlin Academy, igig (dating the document about 170 B.C.); 
cf. also his Ursprung u. Anfange des Christentums, 2, 47#.; Bertholet, Zur Dalierung 
der Damaskus-Schrifl, Beiheft of ZATW, 1920; W. Stark, Die jiid. Gemeinde des 
Neuen Bundes; Ginzberg, Eine unbekannte jiid. Sekle, New York, 1922 (in Selbstver- 
lag); F. J. Foakes Jackson, Beginnings of Christianity, i, 97 f., on the sect of the 
'Covenanters,' also noting other literature. 

'C/. also the expression p. g, 1. 21, 'the man shall be excluded from the Purity 
(mnan)' with i Mac. 14^6, Ixofouv xXfjyJjv ixeyaXifjv ev x'n ayvsi'i}:, i.e., in the sacred 
precincts of the temple. 


throughout the apocalyptic sections of the N.T., the Parousia 
passages of the Gospels, 2 Th. and esp. Rev.^ 

Josephus presents the story of Daniel as a 'prophet' quite at 
length A J x, lo-ii. The contemporary 2 Esd. draws largely 
upon it. And by the final canonization of the Heb. Scriptures 
about the end of the ist cent. a.d. our bk. was included without 
question or doubt. The bk. and those of the Chronicler are 
found at the end of the Canon.^ For those who defend the 6th 
cent, origin of the bk. this fact is indifferent, for they hold that 
these 'closed-up words' (12^) were not published until late. 
But they do not explain how the bk. was published just at the 
right time or why it agrees exactly with the apocalyptic litera- 
ture with which the 2d cent. B.C. was rife. 

The Christian Church, fed on the Or. trr. of the bk., took it 
over con mnore, and along with it certain Apocryphal accretions; 
s. §4. The literary rearrangement effected by the Hellenistic 
Jews in the order of their Canon attached Dan., with its Apocry- 
phal satellites regarded as one with it, to the Major Prophets, 
where it ranked fourth (but in the lists of Melito and Eusebius 
as preceding Eze.) ; s. Swete, Int., Part II, c. i. For a full catena 
of the evidence s. R. D. Wilson, 'The Bk. of Dan. and the 
Canon,' Princeton Theol. Rev., 13, 3 5 2-408. ^ For the views of 
the authorities in the Talmud, for whom Daniel was not a 
'prophet,' s. §23; this lower rating of course never derogated 
from the actual canonicity of the bk. 


For the eldest tradition of 'chapter' divisions we must go to 
the Christian tradition.^ The Theodotionic order placed the 

* There are also several reminiscences of Dan. which have been generally over- 
looked by N.T. editors in consequence of their failure to diagnose the Grr. texts. 

E.g., I note as signal instances 22°, cf. i Cor. i-^ 2", cf. Mt. 21^^; 7', cf. Mt. 27'; 
7", cf. Rev. i^* (dependent on OS's corrupt text). 

' This general statement is to be precised more exactly that in the classical Talm. 
passage on the Canon, Baba balhra 146 seq., Dan. and Est. exchange places, prob. 
a shifting on historical grounds; s. Ginsburg, Int., pt. i, c. 2, and Ryle, Canon of 
the O.T., Exc. C; also de Rossi, Variac lectioncs, i, p. xxvi. Ryle, Exc. B., gives the 
Talmudic passage in translation. 

' Dr. Wilson's learned article combats the chimasra that the claim of later age for 
the bk. contradicts its canonicity. He brings absolutely no new evidence to show 
that the bk. was even known before the 2d cent. B.C.; how he can 'possibly' find a 
ref. to Dan. at Ecclus. 49"" passes comprehension, and as for the witness of i Mac. 
he overlooks the fact that this bk. was composed near the close of that cent. 

1 On this subject s. Swete, Int., Part II, c. i, and for Dan. in particular p. 260. 


Apocryphal Susanna first,^ then our Dan., and at the end the 
Apocryphal Bel and the Dragon; and this is the order of the 
uncials A B Q, also 147 and 21/ but the reverse order in V 62 
(B^ d^. Consequently the Gr. Dan. was divided into twelve 
* Visions' (so A Q): Susanna = no. i, Dan. cc. 1-9 = nos. 2-10 
(inclusive of the Song in Vision 4), Dan. 10-12 = no. 11, Bel, 
etc. = no. 12. Mss 62 147 have occasional notation of the 
Visions, but begin them with Dan. i ; s. Benjamin, p. 305. There 
was also another division current in the Gr. mss, that of Lec- 
tions, e.g., B indicates 21 such (for the whole Gr. bk.), one 
cursive has 9, etc.^ 

The Syro-Hexaplar (s. §8), although casting Susanna after 
our Dan., enumerates the cc. after the traditional system so 
that our c. i is c. 2, the series terminating, however, with cc. 
8-12 (the whole regarded as one vision, or scribal neglect after 
this point ?).^ I have no information as to main divisions in the 
early Latin Bible. Cod. Amiatinus of H, containing also Jer.'s 
Preface to his translation, indicates for our bk. 27 capilula with 
specific rubrics, plus four additional capp. covering Susanna, 
etc. = 31 capp.; s. Tischendorf, Biblia Sacra Latina V. T., pp. 
Ixiv seq. 

The Mediaeval division of the Bible into chapters^ is that 
which all Western use appears to have followed for Dan. Un- 
fortunately the unity of cc. 10-12 was ignored and the one 
Vision was divided into three chapters (after the ancient scheme 
of twelve Visions?). 

' We can trace this tradition back to Hipp.; s. Bonwetsch, 'Studien zu den Kom- 
mentaren Hippolyts,' TU 1897, pt. 2; so the Bohairic; but the Slav. tr. places 
Susanna at the end. 

' I do not understand why Swete has not followed this order of his authority 
Cod. B in his edition; it is disconcerting, in lack of explanation, to the student, who 
immediately finds in the marg. to the int. of Dan. i that Codd. A Q entitle it 'Vision 
2.' Swete's order is that of Origen's arrangement. Tischendorf-Nestle places Su- 
sanna first. An extraordinary mistake has been made by Swete in his Int., p. 260, 
with his statement: "In the Greek mss no break or separate title divides these 
Greek additions from the rest of the text, except that when Daniel is divided into 
'visions,' the first vision is made to begin at i. i, Susanna being thus excluded from 
the number." This statement is contradicted by his own apparatus. 

♦ See Swete, pp. 351 ff.; cf. the divisions of H and M, v. inf. A has the division 
into Visions, enumerated as in A; s. §14, n. 

' Similarly in the Chigi MS, containing our sole Gr. MS of the Septuagint and 
also a Theodotionic text (c), the order is that of the Syro-Hexaplar. 

° See in addition to Introductions to the Canon, etc., G. F. Moore, 'The Vulgate 
Chapter and Numbered Verses in the Heb. Bible,' JBL 12, 7o-'78. 


The Jewish divisions have been obscured to the reader of the 
Heb. Bible by the most unfortunate practice of dividing the 
printed Bibles according to the Mediaeval chapter division. 
This procedure, which still obtains in Bar's professedly Masso- 
retic text, has been corrected by Ginsburg and Kittel (best by 
the former, throwing the chap, and v. numerals into the margin). 
There was an ancient Seder or Lection division in the Heb. bks., 
which has survived in the Mass. tradition. In the apparatus to 
his text of Dan., p. 95, Bar gives a list of these Sedarim, which 
are denoted by M as seven in number. Ginsburg, who finds 
vast fault with Bar (Int., 21) for his registration of the Sedarim 
in general, gives a slightly variant division (ib., 60): 






511 (10) 








529 (28) 



Gin. also conveniently notes these Sedarim in the marg. of his 
text. It will be observed that these seven divisions are about 
quantitatively equal, the last two being somewhat shorter than 
the preceding ones; they possess no Uterary reason and must 
have been made on the pious principle of 'a chapter a day.' 
The editors of the printed Heb. Bibles introduced the Christian 
system of chapter division, but altered it in two respects: they 
followed the Seder division about f°, actually making it at 3^1 
(41), so perpetuating the error of including Neb.'s profession 
within c. 4; and at the end of c. 5, following a pasilk-pathiXh (a 
greater paragraph division), they began c. 6 with 5" of the 
Christian use (here the exact point of division may be indiffer- 

Throughout this Comm. citation will be made after the use 
of the printed Heb. Bibles; where the Christian use varies, the 
correspondent figures will be given also in parenthesis, where 
at all necessary. This practice will also be followed in the case 
of the plus of w. in c. 3 of the Gr., due to the insertion of the 
Song. The Jewish chapter divisions may be followed, very con- 
veniently, in JV; they are noted in the marg. of RVV. 




a. Apocryphal Additions. 

As far back as the testimony for them goes the * Septuagint ' 
((i>) and Theodotion (©) included with our bk. certain Apocry- 
phal accretions.! This material comprises: (i) Susanna, which 
in the tradition of at least always preceded our bk. (for the 
reason that Dan. appears in it as a young and unknown man). 
(2) What the English Bible calls 'The Song of the Three Holy 
Children,' 67 vv. inserted in c. 3 between vv.'^^ and 2^; this piece 
actually comprises: (a) vv.*^*"*^^ a Prayer of Azarias,^ being 
a prayer of confession and supplication; {b) a prose Interlude, 
Yy_4G-5i^ describing the heating of the fire and the descent of the 
Angel of the Lord to cool the flames^; (c) the Benediction (the 
liturgical 'Benedicite') of the Three, w.^^-^''. Then appended 
to our bk. is a collection, treated as one 'Vision,' containing: (3) 
the story of Bel, and (4) that of The Dragon, to which is added 
a manifest supplement introducing the prophet Habakkuk. 

The discussions over the originality of these Additions, which 
of course involves that of the original language, are manifold; 
s. Schiirer, GJV 3, 452-458, and the Introductions to the Apoc- 
rypha. Despite Jer.'s desire to separate the Apocrypha from 
the O.T. and his scholarly rubrics that these Additions are not 
found in the Heb.,^ the Latin Church appears to regard them 
as integral parts of the bk., even as they are physically such in 
the edd. of U.^ This position is not wholly confined to that 
Confession; e.g., Howorth, 'Some Unconventional Views on the 
Text of the Bible: VII. Dan. and Ch.,' PSBA 29 (1907), 31-38, 
61-69, holding these additions to be integral parts of the bk. 

' Swete conveniently gives the text of Cod. A for the two Odes in c. 3 at end of 
vol. 3, pp. 804 f.; ed. 2, pp. 826/. 

' Not of Ananias, otherwise the first-named of the three Companions. The change 
appears to have been effected by the alphabetical rearrangement of the names in 
the Gr. 

' There is a verbatim allusion to this — the earliest notice of these Additions — in 
3 Mac. 6^ Spoff{aa<; xa:[i.tvov= our v. <*"'. 

* Before the Apocryphon in c. 3 and before Bel. 

' E.g., the comm. of d'Envieu and Knabenbauer; and so Szekely, Bibliotheca 
apocrypha, Freiburg, vol. i, 1913, excludes them from his contents. 


More particularly there has been considerable recent debate as 
to the authenticity of the prose Interlude. Rothstein, in his 
comm. on the Additions, in Kautzsch, Apok. u. Pseud., i, 175, 
has proposed® a theory whereby the Interlude is original, but 
the Apocryphal intrusion, first of the Benediction, then of the 
Prayer, has upon ultimate censorship caused the loss of the in- 
cluded genuine Interlude. Andre, Apocryphes de VAncicn Tes- 
tament, Florence, 1903, pp. 214^., agrees with Rothstein, but 
regards only w.^^"*- '*®-^°^ as original; Jahn (an enthusiast for 
(&) retains only vv.^^-^^ Bennett, upon this Apocryphon, in 
Charles, Apoc, i, 629, inclines haltingly to the same position. 
That is, modern editors of the Apocrypha incline to save some 
flotsam of this Apocryphon; but, on the other hand, all comm. 
of the Heb., outside of the Latins and Jahn, have excluded this 
as well as the other Additions from serious consideration. 

The present writer at first, years ago, hailed Rothstein's view 
as correct. Subsequent cooler consideration has made him re- 
nounce it, not for reasons philological or critical but dramatic. 
He avers that the Heb. story is far more striking in leaving the 
discovery of the marvel to the heathen king's eyes, rather than 
with the banal explanation made to precede it. Which is all a 
matter of taste ! He is thus relieved from further treatment of 
the subject in this Comm.'^ 

' After brief suggestions of vGall, Einheillichkeit, 23, n., Bludau, Die alexandri- 
nische Uebersetzung d. B. Daniel, 207. 

' A few notes may be added here. In orig. v. "b has been lost whether through 
homoiotel. in the orig. I^'or in the Gr., or because it was excised in view of v.<"'. 
<S and present but variant texts of the Prayer and the Benediction. The bulk of 
the interlude in <& (the balance being evidently supplemental) appears in (in- 
cluding the characteristic 'Septuagintal' phrase ol xspl t. 'Ai^apfctv, cf. <g v."); it 
looks as though the whole Apocryphon first appearing in C6 has been subsequently 
inserted in 0, which would explain how the latter's text includes it despite his scru- 
pulosity for the Veritas hcbraica. The Syr. is translated from the Gr., not from a 
Sem. original at all; not only is this the general judgment upon all Apocrypha in 
the present Syr. O.T. as secondary {e.g. Duval, Litleralure syriaque, 36), but it is dis- 
tinctly so stated for this Apocryphon by Polychronius at 3-*, " this hymn is found 
neither in the Hebrew nor in the Syriac Scriptures," while Aphrem Syrus ignores it 
in his comm. The Daniel Apocrypha of the Syr. are to be found in the London 
Polyglot in vol. 4; for c. 3 only the Prayer and the Benediction (without the Inter- 
lude), which were prob. introduced from some Gr. collection of 'Odes.' 

M. Gaster has published an alleged 'Aramaic Original of Theodotion's Additions 
to the Bk. of Dan.' in PSBA 16, 280/.; 312/.; 17, 75/. But as Dalman remarks, 
Worle Jesti, 11, n. i, the texts are pieces from the Chronicle of Jerahmeel which 
the author himself says he translated from the Greek Bible. 


b. Later Pseiidepigrapha. 

Naturally enough, 'secret books' continued to amass about 
the appropriate name of Daniel. Fabricius collected in his 
Codex Pseudepigraphus Vet. Test., nos. cxx seq., a number of ex- 
tracts and references bearing upon such literature, including 
astrologies and oneirocritica, of a species that flourished also in 
the vernaculars of the Middle Ages. Tischendorf, Apocalypses 
apocryphae, 1866, xxx-xxxiii, published some extracts of Daniel 
literature in the Gr., and E. Klostermann a Gr. 'Apocalypse of 
Dan.' and two other oracles in his Analecta, 1 13-128. The Ar- 
menian 'Seventh Vision of Dan.' has been edited by G. Kalem- 
kiar, WZKM 6 (1892), 109-136, 227-240 (text and tr.). See 
also Zahn, Forschungen, V (1893), 118 ff., Harnack, Gesch. d. 
altchristl. Litt., 916 jf. For the Syriac Duval, Litt. syr., 93, notes 
the apocalypse of 'The young Daniel concerning our Lord and 
the end of the world'; Baumstark, Gesch. d. syr. Lit., 230, 250, 
signalizes Syr. astrological mss under the same name, for which 
cf. Furlani, ZA 33, 162, etc. J. Darmesteter has published a 
Persian composition, U Apocalypse per sane de Daniel, 1886. 
From the Arabic F. Macler has published V Apocalypse arabe 
de Daniel, 1904, text and tr. (text first published in Heb. type 
by Zotenberg in Merx's Arckiv, pt. 4, 1869, pp. 385-427), cf. 
Bousset, The Antichrist Legend, 109; and also a corpus of Orien- 
tal texts in Les apocalpyses apocryphes de Daniel, 1895, contain- 
ing additional material of Darmesteter's Pers. text, the tr. of a 
Coptic Apocalypse, tr. with notes of Kalemkiar's Arm. Apoca- 
lypse (noting that it is the ' seventh vision ' because of the Arm. 
division of Dan. into six visions), and tr. of Klostermann's Gr. 

The following literary note may be added. In his fascinating 
book. Heaven and Hell in Comparative Religion, N. Y., 1921, 
President K. Kohler recalls that the Jew Immanuel of Rome, 
the admirer and imitator of Dante, takes Daniel as guide in his 
Hebrew poem on Hell and Paradise. 

c. Legends. 

Legendary amplification of Dan.'s history grew apace. Jose- 
phus, AJ X, 10, I, makes him offhand a prince of the blood 
royal, an easy deduction from i^ {q-v.), and Bel v.^ (S makes 


him a priest. (Ps.-)Epiphanius knows his father's name as 
Sabaan and his birthplace as Bethabara, Adv. hacr., Iv, 3, Vita 
proph., X. For various Jewish and Arabic legends s. JE 4, 427, 
429. His tomb has been shown, since the 6th cent., at Susa, a 
little west of the acropolis; s. Loftus, ChaldcBa and Susiana, 1857, 
pp. 317 jf. (with illustration reproduced as frontispiece in Dr.'s 
comm.); JE p. 429 (with another picture). There is a ref. to 
this tomb in Tabari, s. Nold., Gesch. d. Perser u. Araber, 58. See 
also F. W. Hasluck, 'The Caliph Maimun and the Proph. Dan.,' 
Journal Hell. Studies, 42, 99-103, with full bibliography; he 
notes that there is another tomb of Dan. at Tarsus. This tradi- 
tion agrees with Josephus' datum that Darius took Dan. with 
him to Media {AJ x, 11, 4), borrowed by Jer. in his comm. at 
5". Jos. himself has {ib., §7) the tradition of a tower the prophet 
built at Ecbatana which is the place "where they bury the 
kings of Media, Persia and Parthia to this day."* 

The Jewish Aggada on Dan. is collected in Rabnitzki and 
Bialik, Sepher Haaggadah (Heb. title), Berlin, 1922, vol. 4, pp. 
187 _^., and in tr. in L. Ginsberg, vol. 4, Philadelphia, 1913, pp. 
326-350 (a memorandum kindly contributed by Dr. E. Speiser). 



The bk., as at hand, is written in two languages, i.e., Hebrew 
and, for 2^''-7, Aramaic, this section being introduced by a rubric 
gloss, n''D1t< Aramaicc. The problems of text are the same for 
both languages. But the Aram, text appears to be far less defi- 
nitely fixed by tradition than that of the Heb.; this being due 
to the fact that the later editors were primarily occupied with 
the literature and phonetics of a language in theory divine, and 
so were less sure or more careless in the treatment of the Aram.; 

'Dr. E. Sukenik, of the Dropsie College, kindly reminds me of the design of 
Daniel in the Lions' Den worked in the mosaic pavement of the 2d cent, synagogue 
at 'Ain-dilk in the Jordan Valley (s. Vincent, RB 1919, 532/-; plan p. 535, showing 
one of the lions). To cite Dr. Sukenik: "Clermont-Ganneau's suggestion that we 
have here Daniel in the lions' den was confirmed by Pere Vincent's excavations, 
when they found on the other side of the man the inscription CP!!' Sn-ji, which 
means 'Daniel rest in peace!' or 'Daniel in peace.' The field was apparently re- 
garded as the most honorable spot in the synagogue. Ptre Dhorme's first impres- 
sion of the synagogue was that it was dedicated to Daniel." 


also the latter was the Jewish vernacular, and this rendered it 
susceptible to current contamination in contrast with the rigid- 
ity of classical Heb. Withal the whole bk. exhibits an extraordi- 
nary amount of variation, not only in Ktib and K^re and in their 
exchanges, but also in actual variant rdgs. of mss, many of 
which correspond to those of the VSS. Hence the problem of 
original text is peculiarly accentuated for this bk. 

The Massoretic text (JH, as distinguished from 1^, the con- 
sonantal text, which alone lay before the eyes of the ancient 
translators) is the result of an idealistic striving after a final, 
flawless text of Holy Scripture, with a fixed Ktib or consonantal 
basis, accompanied with an apparatus to indicate the exact 
pronunciation and reading of the words and phrases (involving 
syntax), along with corrections of the Kt. to be observed in the 
actual enunciation, — the Kre. This ideal unity was never per- 
fectly achieved. In the latter half of the first millennium two 
Schools had formulated variant Massoretic texts, the Oriental 
and the Occidental, and another complication exists as between 
the rival texts of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali of the first half 
of the loth cent. The Western tradition prefers the authority 
of Ben Asher and naturally and professedly follows the Occi- 
dental Massora; even when an editor, e.g., Ginsburg, critically 
prefers an Oriental rdg. he presents it only in the marg.^ 

In view of such an artificial condition of text, the writer has 
made it his practice to cite, quite regularly, the variant rdgs. of 
four standard editions of M, namely those of J. H. Michaelis, 
Bar, Ginsburg, Kittel, and, in addition, of Strack's Aram, text.^ 

To this apparatus of the Occidental Massora can now be added 
a partial apparatus for an Oriental Massora brought to light in 
recent years: texts provided with the 'Babylonian' vowel-sys- 
tem, one less adequate than ours, the 'Tiberian,' but of great 

"Consult Strack, Prolegomena critica in V.T. hchr., 1873, Pt. I; Ginsburg, Int.; 
Buhl, Kanon u. Text d. A.T., pp. 82-108; Kahle in BL §§6-9; also Briggs, Study 
of Holy Scripture, c. 7; Geden, Outlines of Int. to the Heb. Bible, c. 2. 

^ See Bibliography. Bar gives an extensive Appendix of Mass. apparatus; Gin. 
in his mg. presents a summary apparatus. The primary value of Kit.'s Bible lies in 
its being a reproduction, with slight changes (s. Preface) of Jacob Chayyim's Bom- 
berg Bible, 1524-5, which became the standard exemplar for Bible prints. The 
non-Mass, critical apparatus in the mg. of this ed. is the work of M. Lohr, and this 
part will be duly attributed to him. The traditional differences between the Orien- 
tal and Occidental Schools are denoted by M'^', M^"^. Strack in his Gr. {v. inf.) has 
given collations of a Berlin Codex = Ken. 150, and Cod. Erfurtensis 3. 

§6. THE HEBREW 13 

interest to the philologian. For the material of this apparatus 
and discussion summary reference may be made to P. Kahle, 
'Masoreten des Ostens,' Heft 15, Beitrdge z. Wiss. vom A.T., 
1913.^ Kahle has rendered particular service to the student of 
Dan. by publishing accessible portions of this Oriental text of 
our bk.: viz., op. cit., pp. 81 Jf. for 2^1-", and in Strack, Gr., edd. 
3-6, for 312-15. 20-24^ 4^^-7^ (all Aram, passages). Where citation 
of this apparatus is necessary the signature iJJ^"'' is used. 

But the critic is concerned in going behind this ideal unity of 
a Textus Receptus, back to the mss. For this comparison he 
has at hand the two great collections of variant rdgs. compiled 
by the labors of Kennicott and de Rossi, for which s. the Bib- 
liography. The study of these variants in Dan. has proved in- 
teresting but may not be enlarged upon here. As a sample 
there may be noted the cases where the variants agree with 
rdgs. of VSS. For example : 5" + i^tT^lp [jM^S] = Q Lu. of 
tradition and ^; 8" + n^i"! [a^Q''] = 0; iqIo ^br\ with (I 
iov^T; lo^om. inm . . . ^yiiitrSl with (gg*; lo^^ ]*DS"1 with 
(^ ^ for pTm. The most notable of all variantsis in Ken. 313 
at 9", where for the difficult Q^^flp'^Cji^ hv is read 'V mn'' b^n^, 
such a rdg. as the translator desiderates, and supported by (B 
(one text) and H. This rdg., first detected by Ken., was en- 
thusiastically accepted by JDMich., who proclaimed it 'maso- 
rethica lectione ueriorem.' But de R. acutely observes that the 
MS has an accompanying Latin tr. and that the unique rdg. is 
doubtless a Christian contamination.^ 


For this subject a large lexical and grammatical apparatus is 
now accessible. 1 For the language and diction of the Heb. ref- 

'C/. his earlier Der masorcthische Text d. A.T. u. die Ueberlieferung d. hahylon. 
Judcn, 1902. For the punctuation system s. Bergstrasser, Eebr. Gramm., pp. 50 jf., 
and esp. Kahle in BL §7. 

< This instance opens up an interesting line of inquiry as to MSS; n.h. Ken. 93 has 
its bks. arranged, as Ken. notes, 'ace. to the English order.' The same order is found 
in the Complutensian Polyglot ( = Ken. 270), whose rdgs. there is no reason to cite, 
for the edition is contaminated (as is evident in Dan.) from the Christian Bible by 
the ecclesiastical scholarship which edited it. 

1 For dictionaries, those of Briggs-Driver-Brown, Gesenius-Buhl, and Konig. 
Grammatical ref. is made as far as possible to Gesenius-Kautzsch (also in Eng. tr. 
by Cowley). More recent grammars are those by Bergstrasser (igiS), Bauer- 
Leander (1922), and Joiion (1923). 


erence may be made to the statistics in the opposing arguments 
of Pusey, pp. 575-598, and Dr., Int., 504-508, summarized in his 
Comm., pp. Ix-lxiii; cf. his list of peculiarities in Chr. in the 
former work, pp. 535-540, and Curtis, Chr on., pp. 27-36. It is 
universally accepted that the language of our bk. is that of 
Chr.-Ezr.-Neh. and Est., while its literary use of Eze. is acknowl- 
edged as term, a quo for the bk. Whether Dan. is anterior (with 
Pusey), or subsequent (with Dr., dating it in the 2d cent.) to 
the Chronicler, is the primary moot point. The writer agrees 
with Dr., Int., 504, that "the great turning-point in Heb. style 
falls in the age of Nehemiah . . . and not, as is sometimes sup- 
posed, the Captivity." If this literary judgment is true, then 
Dan. can hardly be earlier than the 5th century, and Pusey's 
argument falls. If the Chronicler belongs to the 4th century, 
as critics now generally hold, and if Ezra's activity is subse- 
quent to Neh., c. 400, as many have come to see, the a quo 
limit is still further lowered. - 

Statistical arguments are not conclusive. E.g., the brief sum- 
mary given by Behr., Dan., p. iii, is not rigorous and contains 
fallacies; he notes the loss of sense for the modes of the vb. and 
their consecution {cf. F. T, Kelly, 'The Imperf. with Simple 
Waw,' JBL 39, 21); the absence of the article (but this in cases 
where the noun becomes 'proper,' e.g., T\'^*\'2 'Covenant'; at 
most a stylism); irregularities and inconsequences within the 
book, but most of these may be laid to the account of inten- 
tional or accidental change.' The Aramaisms of vocabulary are 
actually not numerous.^ In Dr.'s list are noted only TJ, rt. 

nnr ,inn ,j?id ,n*o'7D ,'r^^ ,ntyn ,s]pn; phrases like nii'x 

HD? ,7 ^7 jflJ; there may be added as features of late usage 
the use of Hif. for Kal in certain vbs., and the development of 
process as between Piel and Hif., corresponding to that of 
NHeb. and the Aram, dialects. The little we possess of com- 
parable prose diction of the post-classical Heb. (Neh. is still 
classical) is not adequate to provide exact dating. Ben Sirach, 
c. 180, wrote in rhetorical poetry, and can only be related to our 

^Torrey, Composilion, regards the Memoirs of Ezra as part of the Chronicler's 
handiwork, a position that would date that document still later. 

^ Cf. the very suggestive thesis by O. H. Bostrom, Alternative Rdgs. in the Heb. of 
the Bks. 0/ Sam., Rock Island, igi8. 

* See in general Kautzsch, Aratnaismcn im AT, 1902. 


bk. in the general characteristic of words, forms and syntax 
which are constant in NHeb. It is quite impossible to compare 
with Dan. the somewhat earlier EccL, with its barbaric but 
masterful diction. The opinion of such a connoisseur of Heb. 
diction as Franz Delitzsch, PRE^ 3, 470, himself no radical, 
must weigh in casting what is more a literary than a philological 
decision: the Heb. of Dan. in "general character resembles the 
Heb. of the Chronicler, who wrote shortly before the beginning 
of the Gr. period, and, as compared either with the ancient Heb. 
or with the Heb. of the Mishnah, is full of singularities and 
harshnesses of style." For a document which reads most akin 
to the diction of Dan., attention must be called to the so-called 
Zadokite Fragments, the cross-references of which with Dan. 
have been noted above, §2. In both there are the same obscure 
diction and halting grammar, which are only lit up by the moral 
earnestness of the authors. As literature the Aram, of the bk. 
is of higher order than the Heb. To sum up, the argument from 
the Heb. points to a late age in comparison with the known 
Biblical literature, and it can be assigned with entire philological 
satisfaction to the 2d cent.; while a date earlier than the 4th 
cent, cannot on comparative evidence be easily attributed to it. 


The Biblical texts in this language are found Dan. 2^*^-7 and 
Ezr. 4^-6'^ yi2-26^ along with a glossated verse, Jer. lo^S and an 
Aram, phrase of two words in parallelism with its Heb. equiva- 
lent, Gen. 31''^ — the earliest literary evidence of the language. 

This subject requires more attention than should ordinarily 
be given in a commentary, for several reasons : the lack of proper 
grammatical apparatus for BAram. in English; the great in- 
crease of practically contemporary documents bearing on the 
language which have not been registered in the manuals; and 
the general condition that Aram, is still treated as a luxury and 
exotic in the study of the O.T. and, one might add, the N.T. 

The one compendious grammar on the subject is still that 
by E. Kautzsch, 1884. With this there are the excellent brief 
grammars by H. Strack and K. Marti (the latter now in a 3d 
ed., 1925, which appeared too late for use in this work). Strack 
and Marti include the Aram, texts with glossaries, the glossary 


in Marti being enriched by the contributions of the Iranist 
scholar C. F. Andreas. Strack adds some critical apparatus 
and also sections of Aram, text with the Bab. punctuation, 
edited by Kahle (v. sup. §5). Marti attempts a critically emended 
text with the original referred to the marg.; in ed. 2 he adds 
also the first three numbers of Sachau's papyri. For grammati- 
cal bibliography s. Kautzsch, §8. The grammars of Luzzatto, 
Winer and Brown unfortunately treat the Biblical material 
along with later Jewish dialects. To his text of Ezr.-Neh.-Dan. 
Bar has prefixed 44 pp. of a 'Chaldaismi biblici adumbratio,' 
which Noldeke criticised as a 'ganz misslungene Skizze,' GGA 
1884, 1014. With this apparatus must now be compared the 
grammatical surveys in Sayce-Cowley's and Sachau's editions 
of the Elephantine papyri (resp. pp. 14-20, pp. 261-274), ^-s also 
in Lidzbarski, NE 389-399. 

For lexicographical material BDB (final title-page of date, 
1906) cites Sayce-Cowley, but it appeared too early to include 
Sachau's material; both collections are fully used in GB. The 
Biblical apparatus is now supplemented by the fully collated 
Index of the papyrus vocabulary in Cowley, AP. 

'Biblical Aramaic' (also Chaldee, Chaldaic, Syriac, s. at 2^) 
is an inadequate name, due to its application to what was until 
recently the unique Aram, literature found in the O.T.; the 
term was in contrast with the later Jewish Aramaic dialects. 
With the discovery of Aram, inscriptions going back into the 
8th cent., and the gradual unearthing of various brief texts on 
clay, papyri, etc., hailing from Mesopotamia and Egypt and the 
lands between, culminating in large papyri finds at Elephan- 
tine, at the first Cataract of the Nile, in the first decade of this 
century, archives of a Jewish garrison colony existing there from 
the 6th cent, till c. 400 B.C., we are now in a position to recognize 
the dominant language of the later Semitic world, an official 
tongue of the empires on the one hand, and on the other a lit- 
erary language with products similar to those found in the O.T.' 

For the Aramaeans and their language and the earlier" 
material the reader is referred to the rich material on the sub- 

* The Story of the Three Pages, i Esd. 3^4'-, is a tr. from a Pagan Aram, original, 
s. Torrey, Ezra Studies, c. 3. The theme may have motived the Story of the Three 
Confessors, Dan. 3. The Ahikar romance now found in the papyri is a similar 


ject.^ For the dialectic differences which arose in the language 
and the later division into Eastern and Western with their dia- 
lects, similar reference is to be made to the authorities. Fortu- 
nately the later dialects and literatures are so close to the earlier 
language, with which we are concerned, that their grammar and 
vocabulary are in constant requisition; indeed, the whole Aram. 
field is indispensable to the close student of the present sub- 

'In addition to current Dictionary articles, s. Streck, 'Uber d. alteste Gesch. d. 
Aramaer,' Klio, 6 (igo6), 1S5; SchiSer, Die Aramder, 1911; E. Kraeling, Aram and 
Israel, N. Y., 1918; S. A. Cook, cc. 13-14 of The Cambridge Ancient History, 2 (1924), 
s.v. 'Arama;ans' in Index. 

For the elder epigraphic material s. CIS ii; selected texts with full vocabulary 
and gramm. synopses in Lidzbarski, NE, continued in his Ephemcris, vols. 1-3 
(1902-1915), publishing the current fresh material, as does also the Repertoire 
d'epigraphie semilique, 1901 seq.; and G. .\. Cooke, NSI 1903, with texts, tr. and 
comm. Of specially noteworthy discoveries and finds outside of the papyri may 
be noted: for Babylonian dockets, A. T. Clay, 'Aram. Indorsements on the Docu- 
ments of the Murashu Sons' (5th cent.) in O.T. and Sent. Studies in Memory of 
W. R. Harper, vol. i, 190S, pp. 285-322, and Delaporte, Epigrapkes arameens, 1912; 
the ZKR Inscription (now known to have been found near Aleppo, and at last 
lodged in the Louvre), Pognon, Inscriptions semitiques de la Syrie, 1907, no. 86. 
The wide-spread existence of the language is indicated by an Indian Aram, text, 
s. Cowley, 'The First Aram. Inscr. from India,' JRAS 1915, 342 J-, and the Aram.- 
Lydian Bilingual, s. Littmann in Publications of the Amer. Soc. for the Excavation 
of Sardis, igi6, cf. S. \. Cook, Journ. Hell. Studies, 37 (1917), pp. 77#-. 215 J'., and 
Torrey, AJSL 34 (1918), 185 _ff. The oldest Aram, literary document, outside of 
the inscriptions, is the ostrakon letter of Asshurbanapal's age published by Lidz., 
Allaram. Urkunden aus Assur, 1921. The writer would enter his caveat against the 
listing, with the handbooks, of the Senjirli inscriptions as Aramaic; only the latest 
one, the so-called Building Inscription, can be so classed: the others are Hebrew. 
The ZKR Inscr. is a medley of both languages. 

The standard editions of the two Elephantine collections of papyri are those of 
Sayce-Cowley, 1906, and Sachau, 191 1 (with complete photographic reproductions 
and inclusion of earlier published papyri material). Sayce-Cowley's papyri appear 
in Lietzmann's Kleine Texte, nos. 22, 23, and the first three papyri, ib., no. 32 (as 
also in Mar. Gr., s. above), both edited by W. Stiirk; Sachau's material is completely 
reproduced in Ungnad, Aram. Papyrus aus Elephantine, 191 1; and finally the whole 
of the material, with introductions, bibliography and Index of vocabulary in Cow- 
ley, AP 1923. Cowley has also published an Eng. tr. of selected texts in Jewish 
Documents of the Time of Ezra, S.P.C.K., 1919. Noel Giron has made some interest- 
ing additions to our sources for Egyptian Aramaic: 'Fragments de papyrus arameens 
provenant de Memphis' (known to me only in offprint); 'Glanures de mythologie 
egyptienne'; Bull, de Vlnstitut Franq. d'Arch. Orientale, 23 (1925), 1-25; 'Tomb with 
Aram. Inscriptions,' Aticient Egypt, 1923, 38-43, epigraphs of great historical inter- 
est, containing reference to king Tirhaka (read Npinn), placed by the writer be- 
tween the middle of the 7th cent, and end of the 6th, prob. the oldest known Egypt. 
Aram. text. 

'For the Aram, in general s. Noldeke, 'Semitic Languages,' Enc. Brit.', repro- 
duced in his Semitische Sprachen, 1887, and his series of arts, on several dialects, 
ZDMG 21, 183 #.; 22, 443 _ff.; 24, 85 J.; Chabot, Lcs langues el les littiratures ara- 


The assimilation of all this fresh material, especially that 
from Egypt, rich not only in personal letters and business and 
official documents but also in a noteworthy literary composition 
(the Wisdom of Ahikar), has not yet been fully made with 
BAram. studies. It has therefore been necessary in the follow- 
ing Comm. to make as complete current reference as possible 
to the philological phenomena of the fresh texts. The language 
of this pre-Christian Aram, was, it is manifest, plastically set, 
and had attained literary form. The orthography of our BAram. 
texts has suffered in the development of the vowel-letters (in 
this in company with all Biblical documents), and there is to be 
noticed the subsequent scribal confusion of final N and H, which 
in the elder Aram, were neatly distinguished. There has always 
been question as to the amount of Hebraism in our texts, with 
the general tendency on part of modern critics (e.g., Marti, 
Lohr) to regard these cases as later contaminations. But the 
papyri, for the most part written also by Jewish hands, show 
similar conditions of Hebraism, both in form and vocabulary, 
and we may not lightly emend such cases.'* Also contamination 
from the later Jewish dialects has been alleged, but such charges 
must be very sharply scrutinized. 

The Aram, papyri date from the reign of Darius I, with the 
transcript of his Behistun Inscription, to a document of the 
reign of the pretender Amyrtasus, c. 400 (s. Sachau, APO p. xi, 
Cowley, AP no. 35). Their philological bearing upon the date 
of the Aram, of Ezr. and Dan. has become at once a moot ques- 
tion. Sayce and Cowley remark, APA 20: "Much of the inter- 

meennes, igio. For a survey of the WAram. dialects s. Kautzsch, §s; for publica- 
tions on the modern Syriac (Lebanon) dialect add Bergstriisser, Abh. f. d. Kunde d. 
Morgenlandes, 13 (1915), nos. 2, 3; 15 (1921), no. 4; ZA 23 (1918-19), 103 /. 

For the later Jewish Palestinian Aram. (JAram.) s. Dalman's Gr. and the recent 
brief Grammar by Stevenson; for the Christian-Palestinian, Schulthess' Lex. and 
the recently published Gr. by Schulthess-Littmann, 1924. For the vocabulary of 
the later Jewish literature, Talmud, Midrashim, etc., s. the Dictionaries of Buxtorf, 
Levy, Jastrow, Dalman. For Syriac there should be named especially the Gram- 
mars by Duval and Noldeke, and for its lexicography Payne Smith's Thesaurus, 
the manual Dictionary by Payne Smith-Margoliouth, and Brockelman's Lexicon, 
now in process of a greatly enlarged 2d ed., 1923 scq. Noldeke's Mandaische Gr. is 
an indispensable adjunct. 

* See the excellent Thesis by H. H. Powell, The Supposed Hebraisms in the Gram- 
mar of the Biblical Aramaic, whose positions, sometimes too stringent in claiming 
unnecessarily overmuch as Aramaic, have in general been approved by the lan- 
guage and grammar of the papyri. 


est lies in the many points of contact which they show as rep- 
resented by the bks. of Ezr. and Dan."; similarly Sachau, in the 
preliminary publication of his first three papyri, p. 3: "Die 
Sprache, in der sie geschrieben sind, ist in alien wesentlichen 
Stucken identisch mit derjenigen der aram. Kapitel in den 
Biichern Esra u. Daniel," an observation omitted in the fuller 
edition. R. D. Wilson has pressed this identity of dialect in his 
paper, 'The Aram, of Dan.' 191 2, followed independently by 
C. Boutflower, In and Around the Bk. of Dan., 1923, c. 21. The 
primary impression the student obtains is in agreement with 
this position, which has a crucial bearing upon the dating of 
the Aram, sections of the Bible. But Torrey has subjected this 
alleged identity to a searching test in 'The Aram, of the Bk. of 
Dan.,' AJSL 1908, 232^. = Ezra Studies, 1910, 161 _^. He lays 
particular stress on the historical process of Aram. T (when = 
Arab. J) to T; in BAram. T alone appears, whereas in the 
papyri T is predominant, and is universal in the Bab. dockets. 
The dental demonstratives are of the theme T except in the 
combinations '':3^'»T ,S';:"I ,''21 (each once, in APA, E, F, of 
resp. dates 447, 441); also, including papyri published after 
Torrey 's work, we find DHT 5 times vs. '2,T\1 once; 13T in 6 
papp. vs. 13T in 2 ( ?) ; and ""ST = ''3T each once apiece. It is 
objected by Wilson and Boutflower that in Akk. the OAram. z 
is represented by d, e.g., idri = "ITJ^; but the Bab. dockets 
always have T (s. Delaporte, cited above, n. 2). Thus this proc- 
ess is only at its beginning in the papyri. On the other hand 
the process oi U = Arab, i into H had already taken place by 
the 6th cent. Also it may be noted that OAram. p = Arab. 
(/ = later Aram. V appears in the dockets, e.g., pIS, exclusively; 
in the papyri both p"lS and yii<, the former alone in the an- 
cient Ahikar narrative; but outside of the early Aram, gloss 
Jer. 1 1 10 never in BAram. Torrey also notes that the papyri 
have for the 3d pi. pron. "ll^n [also QH ,]n], whereas BAram. 
has along with IDH (Ezr.) or_ ^i^T] _(Dan.) also the later jlJ^. 
Dan. again alone uses the latter as a demonstrative (2-**) and 
has the unique pT; but the papyri exhibit a variety of pro- 
nominal forms, and little argument can be laid on these forms. 
Such evidence is not extensive, but the whole weight of dif- 
ferences (as Torrey says: "the points of difference are what we 


need most to consider") forces the present writer to hold that 
the Aram, of Dan. is not earlier than within the 5th cent., is 
more likely younger, certainly is not of the 6th cent. As he 
holds that cc. 1-6 are earlier than cc. 7-12 (s. §21, b), he has 
no disposition to date down the former section too far.^ 


Foreign importations into the vocabulary of Dan. have, apart 
from their philological interest, a crucial bearing upon the 
problem of the age of the bk., and so require some detailed no- 
tice. See, in addition to the Lexx., Friedr. Delitzsch in Bar, pp. 
vi-xii, Kautzsch, §64, Behrmann, Dan., p. Lx. Dr., Conim., pp. 
Ivi seq. i and for arguments in rebuttal of the alleged witness of 
such words for the late composition of the bk., inter al., Pusey, 
Notes A seq. (at end of vol.), Boutflower, cc. 21, 22, containing 
a useful exposition of the possible influences of Greece upon the 
Orient; cf. his Chronological Table III, p. xvii, for early con- 
tacts of the Greeks with the Orient. In the following summary 
listing, the place in the Comm. is cited where discussion of the 
word in question is given; if it occurs elsewhere in the O.T. the 
bks. are indicated. 

a. Words from the Akkadian. 

Cf. Zimmern in KAT 6-jS Jf. Omitting ancient borrowings, 
e.g., ^iSTl ,D''1D ,"lSD ,nnS, we note the following: 
TJl"!^ 5' = P-)"*^ elsewhere in O.T. 

m;3 8=, Ch., Neh., Est. 
jrt 2« Ecc, Est., BSir. 

i^ij 2^ = -iSi; Ezr. 6", 

jit? 2*^, Is. 41, Jer., Eze., etc. 

3r; Shaf. ^vz' 315, 
nns 2". 

T V 

f^n'j'O 5^''= Aram. vnSn 5^. 

Also note Dy;p with Akk. mng. 3'°, and so prob. hry 5^. 

' Wilson rightly takes issue with Dr. over the latter's contentions for the late 
character of the Aram, of Dan., many of which the papyri invalidate. But Wilson 
commits the same fallacy of indiscriminatingly appealing to the later dialects. It 
may be remarked that we have no evidence from this age for a distinction, as 
Noldeke and most postulate, between EAram. and WAram. 


b. Persian words. 

niJ-nN 3^, an officer. 

N-TTN 2^, 'made known.' 

|3i.-irnN, 3", 'satrap,' Ezr., Est. 

pDN 11^5^ 'palace.' 

na-j^ 3=, an officer (or = -\2V Ezr. f\ 

or a dittograpli). 
PT 7-5 'law,' Ezr., Est. (occurrence 

Dt. 33- an error). 
■'?71 3"> an officer. 
■>37l' 3'*, an officer. 

D^n 2^, 'limb.' 

'^■?r'?q (etc.) 5^, 'necklace.' 

li 3^, 'species,' Ps., Ch., BSir. 

11D 6', an officer. 

nn-^? i^ 'noble.' 

jpns I*, 11=", 'provision.' 

a,!?? 3'S 'word,' Est., Eccl. 

IT 4^, ' secret.' 

vnpn 3-, an officer. 

nj-ij 7 15 is to be excluded as a corruption. For njraj s. at 2«, and for raa 
at 3='. 

All these words are found in the Aram, section, exc. three, 
and two of these in c. i, which is possibly a tr. from the Aram. 
Eight are official titles. As the history of Dan. through cc. 1-5 
is enacted under Bab. kings, it is passing strange that so much 
Pers. vocabulary, actually including Pers. titles, is included. 
Sachau, APO 268, enumerates (prob. not exact list) for his 
papyri of the 5th cent, about twelve words of Pers. origin, and 
Sayce-Cowley, p. 20, three or four more. The correspondence 
between the Elephantine colony and the Pers. governor (Sa- 
chau's papp. 1-3) contains only one Pers. word, 1*^iri^3 'gov- 
ernor,' I, 1. 5. In the Aram, copy of Darius I's Behistun Inscr. 
there are no Persian words exc. proper names. Accordingly the 
Pers. must have made its way very slowly into the Aram., as 
we might expect for the language of the conquerors of a highly 
civilized people. Boutflower notes, p. 244, 'the fourteen words 
which belong to court life,' and argues: "That these words 
should be expressed in the OPers. by a writer in the position 
occupied by Dan. is really nothing to be wondered at, nay, is 
almost what we might expect." But why should even a royal 
official, who was a Semite and had enjoyed most of his life and 
experiences under Bab. monarchs, be so contaminated in the 
diction of his old age with the vocabulary of the new empire? 
Indeed his Pers. vocabulary is more extensive than his Baby- 

This fairly large proportion of Pers. words in the Aram, sec- 
tion of the bk. is an argument for the distinction of the first and 


the second half of the volume, and further points to the origin 
of the first part in Babylonia, not Palestine; s. §21, a.^ 

c. Greek words. 

There are three words of undisputed Gr. origin, and one gen- 
erally so accepted. The latter is 8Ti^3 3^ 'herald,' a genuine 
Sem. formation from Krjpva-attv -^ s. Behr., p. ix; but Noldeke, 
GGA 1884, 1019, doubts the Gr. origin. The other words appear 
in the list of musical instruments in 3^, etc.: DIH'^p = Ktdapi'i-^ 
j''"iniDD= -^jraXTijpiov^ N''JSD'1D= crvii^oivia. On these words 
s. Dr., Comm., p. Iviii. The KidapL<; is an ancient instrument; the 
■y^aXTrjpLOv first appears in Aristotle; the word o"f/A<^a't'ta, ' har- 
mony, ' first in Plato, while in the sense of a musical instrument 
it is first used, probably, in Polybius. And this latter authority 
uses it, as Dr. notes, "singularly in his account of the festivities 
in which Antiochus Epiphanes indulged (xxvi, 10, 5; xxxi, 4, 8)." 

The rebuttal of this evidence for a low date lies in the stress- 
ing of the potentialities of Gr. influence in the Orient from the 
6th cent, and on; cf., e.g., J. Kennedy, The Bk. of Dan. from a 
Christian Standpoint, 1898, App. II, and Boutflower, c. 22. The 
latter offers arguments based upon alleged Hellenic influences in 
the Orient, e.g., the introduction of the Ionic column, while 
the tiling in Nebuchadnezzar's throne-room, discovered by Kol- 
dewey, is even ascribed to that influence. Without doubt we 
may no longer close our eyes to the interchanges of the currents 
of the Eastern Mediterranean civilizations; yet we are equally 
learning more and more of the profound influences exerted by 
the East upon the West. In the matter of music, for instance, 
the Orient was far developed; s. the literature on the subject in 
the Comm. at c. 3. If our bk. were otherwise an approved docu- 
ment of the 6th cent., we should be forced to allow that the 
words in question were of early coinage. But as the evidence 
stands, these Gr. words must incline the scales toward a later 
dating. We may allow that the cautious Driver speaks too 

* The Pers. had very slight influence upon the Gr., at least to the lower limits of 
the Hellenic Golden Age. The present fancy of postulating an extensive Pers. influ- 
ence in the West must reckon with this philological fact. Sayce, The Higher Criticism 
and the Monuments, 493 /., notes the absence of Pers. vocabulary in the Bab. docu- 


positively in his categorical statement, p. Ixiii, that "the Gr. 
words demand ... a date after Alex, the Great"; we might 
prefer to express his opinion in terms of likelihood; but with 
every decade as we move back the likelihood would diminish 
progressively toward zero. The Gr. words are, until more light 
comes, to be put in the scales with those from Persia, and both 
categories require a heavy counterweighting to resist their logi- 
cal pressure. 2 

In addition to the above words Torrey has argued for the 
derivation of DJnS from <^^ey/xa; but s. Comm. at 3'^ One Gr. 
word appears in the papyri, j"irir,D = araTrjpe^^ in Sachau, 
APO Pap., 35, of date c. 400, dated in the reign of the Graecizing 
Amyrtaeus, also in a few other undated papyri. In one or two 
places the writer has suggested Gr. influence upon the diction, 
e.g., 12^ '^^^= V oUov/xePT]. 


It is to the credit of Bertholet in his comm., 1806, to have 
first recognized poetic passages in the bk., distinguishing them 
by aligning their (poetic) verses in his translation, but without 
further discussion of their form. Ewald in his comm., after his 
usual method, cast his whole translation into apparently metri- 
cal form by a system of caesuras. Otherwise this literary char- 
acteristic has been generally disregarded by comm. and ignored 
in histories of O.T. Literature. Marti has given very meritori- 
ous attention to this feature, s. his Dan., p. xi, and has cast many 
passages into poetic form with attempt at metrical analysis. 
This cue has been taken up, fortunately, by the Jewish Version, 
as well as by Lohr and Charles. An extreme attempt was made 
by E. Bayer, Danielstudien, the second Study in which is 'Der 
Strophenbau des Buches Dan.,' with a translation of the whole 
bk. in verse and strophe. But this is an exaggerated feat with- 
out metrical control. Szold has attempted something similar for 
c. II, s. Int. to that chap. 

The writer has made a moderate attempt at marking out such 
poetic passages in the translation, with pertinent remarks, but 
not going as far as Marti. The forms are too spontaneous to 

*Dalman notes 25 Gr. words (ace. to the count of Wilson, op. cit., 2g6) inTarg. 
Onk., s. his Gr. §37. 


be allowed to control the text. The cases exhibit the fact that 
Aram, diction could break out into poetry as does Heb. and 
Arab., in both of which we find the art of the improvisatore as 
in the Italian, a well-known literary phenomenon which has 
been ignored by many critics who would put the Hebrew writers 
into metrical strait-jackets. Charles has taken the pains of 
pointing out the same phenomenon in the Apocalyptic literature. 

The form of Aram, poetry is similar to that of Heb. with mea- 
sured beats, generally trimeter; cf. the recognition by Torrey of 
a 3-beat rhythm in the Story of the Three Pages in 2 Esd., s. 
Ezra Studies, p. 47, and by Lidzbarski for the Mandaic, Man- 
ddische Liturgien, p. xiii, a form which he believes was carried 
over into the Manichaean Turkish, Gottingen Nachrichten, 191 8, 

I find definite metrical structure in 3^^ 4^-^- ''^-^- "-^'', and the 
greater part if not all of vv. 21-34; in 6"-2», y^-i"- i^-^*- ^^-^', g^S i23. 
But metrical criticism may not be pushed too far in the premises. 



The ancient VSS often present an older form of text than 
that of ^, or at least worthy and interesting primitive varieties. 
The only method for the study of the VSS lies in the way of 
their genetic relationships, their language is a very secondary 
item. But it is convenient to give a preliminary survey of them 
according to language. 

a. Greek. 

For introduction to the ancient Gr. VSS, their mss, editions, 
etc., reference can be made to Swete's Introduction, and in detail 
for the Greek and all important VSS to the often indispensable 
articles, s. voce. 'Versions,' 'Septuagint,' 'Theodotion,' and the 
like, in the BDD, DCB, PRE\ Cf. also the more popular Hand^ 
hook to the Septuagint by Ottley, 1920. The texts primarily fol- 
lowed in this Comm. are those presented by Swete in vol. 3 of 
his O.T. in Greek (the Int. to which vol. should be consulted for 
further discussion of the mss employed) ; the text of Theodotion 
appears (but not based on photographic material) in Tischen- 


dorf-Nestle's text (Nestle being also a large contributor to 
Swete's ed.). For the bk. of Dan., Swete offers a more extensive 
and varied apparatus than usual for the Gr. books. On the left- 
hand page he gives the vulgarly called ' Septuagint ' text, taken 
from Cozza's transcript of the unique ms in the Vatican, and 
in the marg. the variants of the parallel ' Syro-Hexaplar ' (v. inf.), 
retranslated from Syriac into Gr. On the right-hand page ap- 
pears the VS of 'Theodotion' after the text of the uncial B, with 
the variants of the other uncials A Q and the fragmentary F, 
the texts of A B Q being collated from the photographic repro- 
ductions of those codices now at hand, that of the palimpsest T 
from the collation of Cozza, Sacrorum Bibliorum letustissima 
fragmenta graeca et latina, vol. i. 

The standard list of Gr. mss of the O.T. is now that pub- 
lished by Rahlfs in his Verzeichncss. For the rdgs. of all other 
MSS except those named above the student of Dan. has had to 
rely upon the vast variorum work of Holmes and Parsons (HP), 
1798-1827, now accordingly a century old. The writer and his 
collaborators have been able to add some fresh photographic 
and other material, v. inf. 

The material may be conveniently divided into the following 

(i) The Old Greek or 'Septuagint.' 

The Old Greek VS of Dan., belonging to that corpus of trans- 
lations which is roughly called ' Septuagint ' in distinction from 
later VSS, was early banned by Christian scholarship because 
of its glaring discrepancy from the neritas hebraica. A unique 
cursive MS of that earliest translation alone exists, in the Codex 
Chisianus, where it is followed, after selections from Hippolytus' 
comm. on Dan., by a text of the Theodotionic type. Its dis- 
covery and publication have a romantic history. Pope Alexan- 
der VII, a member of the Chigi family, to which the ms be- 
longed, intrusted it to Leo Allatius, librarian of the Vatican 
(b. 1586, d. 1609) for publication, but the undertaking was not 
carried out. It was resumed a century later by Vincent de 
Regibus and Joseph Bianchini, both of whom died before their 
labors were over, and the work was finally brought to the press, 
anonymously, as far as the imprint shows, by Simon de Magi- 
stris (de Maitres) in 1772 in folio, a title in Greek and Latin, s. 
Bibliography. The vol. contains also Hipp.'s comm. and the 


Theodotionic text noticed above, along with five long disserta- 
tions, the work of Bianchini. The edition was not copied directly 
from the MS but from a copy made by de Regibus. Several re- 
prints of the text rapidly appeared, but they are now antiquated 
for d by the critical edition of Cozza in his Sacroruni Bibliorum 
vetustissima fragmenta graeca et latina, part 3, Rome, 1877. This 
is the text published by Swete as noted above. There is used for 
this text the symbol (^, which covers equally the Syro-Hexa- 
plar; where the two differ in their rdgs. they are distinguished 
by the sigilla (&^ and Cl^. This avoids the unfortunate confu- 
sion which appears to have arisen through the confusing of 
Holmes-Parsons' symbol; Parsons used 88 (for both ® and ©), 
Field corrected this to 87, and the error has been perpetuated 
by Swete; s. the writer's note, JBL 1925, p. 289, n. 5.^ 

(2) The Theodotionic group. 

The remaining Gr. mss belong to the stock of the transla- 
tion ascribed by ecclesiastical tradition to Theodotion (s. §12). 
The name (©) is used here in a general way as including the later 
Hexaplaric and Lucianic revisions with much material of Aquila 
and Symmachus in glosses. But in case of variation among the 
strata, is used strictly of the primitive translation. For the 
material we have: 

The uncial codices A (Alexandrinus), B (Vaticanus), Q (Mar- 
chalianus), the fragmentary F (Codex rescriptus cryptoferraten- 
sis, text of Cozza, op. cit., vol. i), the first three in photographic 
reproduction and all in Swete's apparatus; and V (= HP 23), 
of which a collation from photographs in connection with this 
work has been published by C. D. Benjamin (s. §14). 

> A reprint of the cdilio princcps, in small format and with the exclusion of the 
Dissertations, was published at Gbttingen in 1773 (also the imprint 1774 appears), 
anonymously but at the hand of J. D. Michaelis. This was followed by editions by 
Segaar, Utrecht, 1775, and H. A. Hahn, Lpzg., 1845. See for bibliography and 
earlier discussions Bludau, De alexandrinae inter pretationis libri Danielis indole criiica 
et hermencutica, Miinster, 1891, pp. 37 Jf-, and the same scholar's Die alex. Ueberset- 
zung d. Buches Daniel, 1897 = Biblische Studien, ii, parts 2, 3, pp. 2$f. For a note 
on the authorship s. Nestle, DB 4, 441 b. The earlier editions still have a value far 
their presentation of the text of the little studied Theodotion of the ms. An unreg- 
istered edition is a print by S. Bagster, London, n.d., The Gr. Sept. Vs. of the O.T. 
according to the Vatican Edition together with the Real Septuagint Vs. of Dan., etc. 
The MS has been generally assigned to the gth cent.; but Tischendorf (Prolegomena 
to his Vetus Testamentum Graece, ed. 4, p. xlviii, n. 3), Vercellone (s Field, Hexapla, 
2, 567), Bleek-Wellhausen, Einl.*, 588, Lohr, ZATW 1895, 76, put the date in the 
nth cent.; cf. also Swete, O.T. in Gr., 3, p. xii. 


Cursives HP 62 147 have been similarly collated and pub- 
lished (v. ibidem). Of HP's remaining thirty numbers four (37 
45 61 132) are lectionaries, mostly confined to cc. 2, 3; 149 
contains cc. 3-6, 105 is a fragment of 3 w., 229 is the Bible text 
in a MS of Theodoret's comm. For HP 88 I have adopted the 
sigillum c (chisianus), so as to avoid the confusion noted above, 
following the editio prima and Michaelis' reprint. 

In addition the very full Bible text — by rough calculation 
about four-fifths of the whole — contained in Hipp.'s comm., 
now published in full by Bonwetsch, has been adduced for the 
apparatus, = h. A Jerusalem MS of the Prophets from the 
Holy Sepulchre has been studied from a photographic copy; 
for the MS s. Swete, Int., p. 268, at end of list, Rahlfs, p. 84, 
Holy Sepulchre, no. 2. The latter text is Lucianic without par- 
ticular value. Tisserant has published Lucianic fragments of 
^2-15 jj^ j^is Codex zuquinensis, Rome, 1911." 

(3) The Versions of Aquila and Symmachus. 

Theodotion has been noticed first against the usual academic 
traditional custom; for the reasons s. §13. Aq. and Sym. may 
be grouped together, for their fragmentary remains are found 
in the same sources. The thesaurus of these materials is Field, 
Origenis hexaplorum quae supersuni, etc. (Hex.), 2 vols., 1875.^ 

A close study of the Gr. of Dan. adds considerably to our 
knowledge of those translators, especially of Aq. As in the other 
O.T. bks. our prime source of information is the Syro-Hexaplar, 
with the respective initials generally marking the glosses from 
'the Three,' Aq., Theod., Sym. These materials, redone into 
Gr., most usefully appear in Swete's marg. to the (S text. There 
come next the citations of the Three found in the Fathers, Euse- 
bius, Theodoret, Chrysostom, etc., and especially in Jer.'s very 
ample and close comm. And in addition we have glosses of 

' The writer has not had opportunity to try out thoroughly the ingenious and 
reasonable theory of F. Wutz for a transcription of the Heb. into Gr. letters as 
basis for the Gr. VSS: ' Die Transkriptionen von der Septuaginta bis zu Hieronymus,' 
Beilr. z. Wiss. d. A.T., Heft g, 1925. Wutz applies his theory to the two VSS of 
Dan., pp. 168-175. But many of his alleged proofs can be explained far more satis- 
factorily from corruptions, oral and scribal, in the Sem. field. Cf. for example my 
Notes at 2', 2" for satisfactory explanations which do not require his theory. The 
theorj' is hardly applicable to much of <8's free and fluid rendering. 

' N.b. also the Auctarium at end of vol. 2, p. 57, for additional notes. Add to 
the abundant literature on this subject J. Reider, Prolegomena to a Gr.-Heb. and 
Ileb.-Gr. Index to Aquila, Dropsie College, 1916. The only drawback to this val- 
uable treatise is that it lacks the necessary indices. 


scholiasts to mss, marked or unmarked. Q has some of this 
marked material, s. at 4^^, lo*- ^°, 11", with a case in A at 9^, all 
which uncial evidence is given in Swete's marg. Still more ma- 
terial to be diagnosed as Aquilanic or Symmachian is found in 
certain other mss (v. inf.). And probing of the Hexaplaric addi- 
tions to (^ and discovers much more material (from which 
contaminations no MS is free, not even B), that is also to be 
referred to those translators. 

In the following Comm. the material of this order which is 
had in Field, much of which is handily given by Swete, is not 
cited except for reason. The two translations have little bearing 
upon the text, for their text is with a minimum of slight excep- 
tions that of i^. Their importance, apart from their testimony 
to the fixation of the text, consists in their interpretations, rep- 
resenting as they do, in Aq. at least, authoritative Rabb. exege- 
sis of the first third of the 2d cent., and hence invaluable for the 
substance and history of interpretation. For brevity's sake ref- 
erence must be made ad. loc. to the Notes for notable rdgs. In 
general both translators exhibit the same characteristics as ap- 
pear elsewhere in the O.T. 

In addition to these definitely annotated glosses and the 
Patristic citations, which are fully given by Field, there are 
many unique rdgs. and some marginal glosses, most of which 
are probably to be referred to those Jewish translators. Most of 
such glosses are found in HP 36 (10 in number); V and 26^ fol- 
low in number of peculiar rdgs. There are over 30 such cases 
not noticed by Field, the character of which refers them to 
those translators. These will be noted when of interest ad loc. 
For a sample there is the unique and correct rendering by c of 
NPIu) 519 by 'icroi^e (© 'irvmev)^ so only ^. Field notes two 
citations from o 'E/3paco^ (s. Hex., i, p. Ixxi seq.), at i' and at 
9^6 (Auctarium, p. 58). 

But the influence of these translations amounts to far more 
than a list of citations can show. Origen's Hexapla rested largely 
for form at least, much less in peculiar vocabulary, upon Aquila. 
This element will be discussed more at length in connection with 
the Hexaplaric revisions, s. §14. An exemplary case of filling a 
lacuna from Aq. is found in (8 ii4ib-42a_ 

* Klostermann on this MS, Anahcla, lo: "Der als Repriisentent der Rezension 
des Hesychius (Cornill, Ceriani) [?] wichtige Codex ist nicht gut kollationiert." 


(4) The Mediaeval Graeco-Venetus. 

This is a version (Gr/"") contained in a unique ms at Venice, 
first made known in the i8th cent. It has been partly published 
in an exemplary edition by O. Gebhardt: Graecus Venetus: Pen- 
tateuchi Proverbiorum Ruth Cantici Ecclesiastae Threnorutn Da- 
nielis versio graeca, 1875, with pref. by Franz Delitzsch. It was 
probably made toward the end of the 14th cent, by a cosmopoli- 
tan Jew (one Elissaeus of Constantinople, as Delitszch suggests), 
and is done in a way that has earned for him the title of a 
'second Aquila.' The Aram, section of Dan. is rendered, by a 
remarkable tour deforce, in Doric in contrast to the Attic of the 
rest of the tr. It has no value for text criticism, but is of inter- 
est as representing Jewish interpretation of the age, Kimhi being 
the translator's master. See Kamphausen, TSK 1876, 577-586; 
JE 'Elissaeus,' and vol. 3, 1876. 

b. Latin. 

(i) The Old Latin. 

By this title is meant a version, or rather group of versions, 
of sporadic origin, which preceded Jerome's translation, the Vul- 
gate, which was published early in the 5th cent. The latter is 
in general so original that its predecessors can easily be distin- 
guished, even in texts compounded of the old and the new.^ 

The OLat. texts are sub- versions from the Gr., and in respect 
to pre-Hieronymian citations are based upon ® and 0. For the 
change from the former to the latter, which appears in TertuUian 
and his disciple Cyprian (the date of the Latin of Irenaeus is 
now a moot question), reference is to be made to the discussion 
in §12, c. The MS fragments and the great majority of the pre- 
Hieronymian citations are based on 0, and the symbol 21 will 
denote Latin texts of that character. 

The citations present very complicated problems. But schol- 
arship has been for some time in the fortunate possession of sev- 
eral extensive fragments of Dan. These were published by E. 
Ranke: Fragmenta versionis sacrarum scriptiirarum latina ante- 
hieronymiana, Vienna, 1868 (the 'Weingarten' Fragments), cov- 
ering Dan. 2^*-^^, 92^-10" (= Ba^^"*"'); Par palimpsestorum wirce- 

' See H. A. A. Kennedy, DB 352 ff., for a full and compact art., 'Old Latin Ver- 
sions,' with good bibliography; and now Dold's vol., to be mentioned immediately, 
with its citations of more recent literature. 


hurgensmm, Vienna, 1871 (the Wurzburg Fragments = W^^^), 
containing Dan. i^^-^^^ T^n-(.bo)^ 8^-91°, lo^-ii"^; another fragment, 
J. j35-39 jj^ Stutgardiana versionis sacrarum scripturarum latinae an- 
tehieronymianae fragmenta, Vienna, 1 888 (so the copy at hand — 
I suppose identical with the variant title noted by Dold, p. 3, 
n. I, Antiquissimae Veteris Testatnenti latinae fragmenta stutgar- 
diana, Marburg, 1888); and by P. Corssen, Zwei netie Fragmente 
der Weingartner Prophetenhandscrift nebst einer Untersuchnng 
iiber das Verhdltniss d. Weing. u. Wiirzb. Prophetenhandschrijt, 
Berlin, 1899 (which I have not seen). 

Since the practical conclusion of this apparatus there has come 
to hand a most important and exhaustive volume by A. Dold: 
'Konstanzer altlateinische Propheten- u. Evangelien-Bruch- 
stiicke: mit Glossen,' etc., Lpzg., 1923, in Texte u. Arbeiten 
herausgegeben durch die Erzabtei Beuron, i Abt., Heft 7-9. The 
learned author appears to have substantiated the fact that the 
so-called ' Weingarten ' Fragments (a fortuitous name) and the 
Stuttgart Fragment came originally from the cathedral library 
in Konstanz. He has accordingly edited under attribution to 
that place all the ms material which he and his predecessors 
have been able to ferret out in various parts of Germany (often 
found made up in bookbindings !), including the Weingarten 
and Stuttgart material. (The earlier editors with their notes and 
commentaries are by no means antiquated; but there is con- 
stant revision of the earlier rdgs. of the obscure, often palimp- 
sest, texts.) Dold has also contributed considerable fragments 
of an unpublished text from the monastery at St. Gall: i^-*, 
^20-22^ ^^3o_gic (some sections fragmentary), 9-^-10^, 11^-12"; also 
fragments of the Apocryphal Additions. This fresh material 
came too late for digestion for this work; but important data 
will be registered in the Comm. Dold's volume is encyclopaedic 
in character; it contains, inter al., a comparison of the Dan. 
texts with the Patristic citations, pp. 154-158; cf. the summary, 
p. 279. The present writer allows his own list of citations, given 
below, to stand, as representing his own sources. Naturally the 
apparatus of the Comm. depends primarily upon these authen- 
tic fragments for its use of the OLat. 

For the OLat. Patristic citations the one corpus is the classic 
collection by P. Sabatier, Bibliorum sacrarum latinae vcrsiones 
antiquae seuvetus Italica, Rheims, 1739-49, reprinted Paris, 1757. 




Its material for Dan. is meagre, and the writer has had to make 
his own collation.^ He has found gleanings of interest, some of 
them of textual importance, and presents the survey of citations 
in outline; it will serve at least for registration of the OLat. 
references in the Comm. The Fragments of 21 are also in- 
cluded. The whole material covers perhaps three-quarters of 
the bk.^ For critical discussion of this material s. §§12, 13. 

ii6_229 wzb. 

2I8 j3 Wng. = Const. 

2^^ Cassiod., In Ps., loi. 

231-35 Cypr., Test., ii, 17; Maternus, 

c. 21. 
2^ '• Iren., v, 26; cf. iv, 34, 10. 
234 f. Tycon., p. 2. 
241-M Iren., v, 26, i. 
315- (50) Wzb. 
^le-is Cypr., Test., iii, i; cf. Ep. ad 

Fort., c. II, Epp. vi, viii; Spec, c. 

2(25J7) Aug., Ep., p. 646; cf. Cypr., 

De laps., c. 31. 
3 ("-^' Cypr., Test., iii, 20. 
3 <''-^^' Aug., Ep., cxi. 
3(51) Cypr., De doni. or., c. 8. 

3 (" ff) Aug., De civ., xi, 9. 

324b-25 jren., v, 5, 2. 

4'''-'' Spec, c. 114. 

4=°-", 4'''-8i« Const. 

4^ Cypr., De opere ei eleem., c. 5. 

S" ^/'ec, c. 3. 

^25-28 j)g prom., ii, 34. 

624 (23) -28 (27) ^^.p^.^ TeSt., iii, 20. 

7'-" Lucif., c. 30. 

7* Iren., v, 25, 2; Victor., In Apoc, 

xiii, 2. 
7'-'" Ps.-Cypr., Ad Nov., c. 17. 
7'° Iren., ii, 6, 2; Tycon., p. 60. 
7'' ^- Iren., iv, 34, 10, cf. iii, 20, 2, iv, 

50, I, iv, 55, i; Cypr., Test., ii, 26; 

Maternus, c. 25; Aug., De civ., 

xviii, 34. 

^I acknowledge particular debt to Burkitt's studies, 'The Rules of Tyconius,' 
TS iii, and 'The Old Latin and the Itala,' ib., iv, to which further reference will be 
made. Cf. now Dold's register of citations, p. 279, noted above. 

'The texts used are: 

Augustine, De civ. Dei, ed. Dombert, 1877; Epistolae, ed. Goldbacher, CSEL 
vol. 34, pt. 2. 

Cassiodorus, In Psalmos, PL 70. 

Commodianus (c. 250), ed. Dombert, CSEL vol. 15 (for citation of Biblical phrases 
s. his Index). 

Cj^jrian, ed. Hartel, CSEL vol.3, pt. i; Ps. -Cyprian, Ad Novalianum, ib., pt. 3. 

Irenaeus, ed. Harvey. 

Julius Firmicus Maternus (fl. 350), PL vol. 12. 

Julius Hilarianus, De mundi duralione libellus, PL vol. 12, pp. 1102 ff. 

Lucifer Calaritanus (c. 350), De tion parcendo in Deum dclinquentibus, ed. Hartel, 
CSEL vol. 13. 

Tertullian, Adv. ludaeos, ed. Oehler. 

Tyconius, ed. Burkitt, TS vol. 3, pt. i. 

Victorinus of Pettau, ed. Haussleiter, CSEL vol. 39 (against Bludau, p. 19, Vict, 
also uses 0). 

De Pascha computus (c. 253?), ed. Hartel, CSEL vol. 3, pt. 3. 

De promissionibus et praedictionibus Dei (Ps. -Prosper), PL 51, 733 ./T. (largely cited 
by Sabatier). 



y 15-28 Aug., Dc civ., xx, 23. 

720-25 Iren., v, 25, 2. 

f Iren., v, 34, 2. 

8^ 5/'cc., c. 114. 

gs-gio Wzb. 

giib-iz ii-en., V, 25, 3. 

823-25 Iren., ib. 

g,i-2b Tert., v4(^z). lud., c. 8. 

g3.2o Aug., Ep., cxi. 

9^-' Cypr., Z)e laps., c. 31. 

9='-" Tert., c. 8. 

g23-27 jD^ prom., ii, 35. 

g24-27 j)g pascha, c. 13. 

g25_jQii Wng. = Const. 

g25 Victor., De fabrica niiindi, c. 8. 

g26_jQ6 Const. 

9^8 Commod., ApoL, 11. 267/. 

9" Iren., v, 25, 3. 



1 1 6_ J J 31 Const. 

J J 16-23 Const. (Corssen). 

ii20J3 Wzb. 

11^^12" Const. 

JJ35-39 Const. (Ranke's Stuttg.). 

j2ib-3 Aug., De civ., xx, 23, xxii, 3. 

12- Spec, c. 27. 

12^ Iren., iv, 40, i;Spec., cxvi. 

12*- ""Iren., iv,4o, i; Cypr.,rc5/.,i,4. 

12"'' Cass., In Ps. li. 

(12'-" Iren., i, 12, Gr. and Lat. texts, 

citation of C§ from Marcosian 

12'^ Iren., v, 34, 2; Aug., De civ., xx, 

23; ^/-ec, c. 27. 
Susanna (always preceding Dan.). 
13I-3 Cjqir., Test., iii, 20. 
i3« 5^ec., c. 3. 
cc. 13-14 Iren., s. Harvey's Index. 

(2) The Vulgate. 

For Jerome's Version (H) s. the full article by H. J. White, 
'Vulgate,' BD. The text used in this Comm. is Tischendorf's 
Biblia sacra latina Veteris Testamenti, 1873, being the official 
Clementine text, with the rdgs. of the Codex Amiatinus in the 
marg. These rdgs. will be distinguished by H'^'", they are almost 
always preferable to the received text. It may be noted that in 
his comm. Jer. does not always follow his tr., probably in such 
cases borrowing from iH. 

c. Coptic. 

There are two printed texts of Coptic translations of Dan., 
both of them being sub-versions from the Gr.^ 

(i) The elder, in the Sahidic dialect of Upper Egypt, was 
published by A. Ciasca, Fragmenta copto-sahidica Musei Bor- 
giani, Rome, 1889. Its fragments of Dan. are 7^'^^ 8^^-^^, 9'-^^, 
lo^- ^-", 65 vv. in all. For my knowledge of this VS, as yet un- 
translated, I am indebted to Prof. G. A. Barton for a translation 
he kindly made for me, and to Dr. Gehman, who has assisted me 

' See Vaschalde, RB 29, 253, for other fragments and citations in a series entitled 
'Ce qui a ete public des versions coptes de la Bible.' On the general subject s. 
Hyvernat, 'fitude sur les versions coptes,' ib., 3, 429. 


in a critical examination of the text. It belongs to the Theo- 
dotionic tradition and will be treated in §12, J as CH^. 

(2) The VS in the Bohairic dialect, of Lower Egypt, was pub- 
lished by H. Tattam in Prophetae Majores in dialecto linguae 
aegyptiacae memphitica seu coptica, Oxford, 1852, vol. 2, accom- 
panied with a Latin tr. As (H^ it belongs to the Hexaplaric 
group, s. §14. 

d. Syriac. 

There are two distinct translations accessible: 
(i) The earlier translation (vulgarly called Peshitto) made 
directly from the original (= ^) appears in practically identical 
texts in the Paris and London Polyglots, the Lee (1823) and 
Urmia (1852) editions, and the photographic copy of the Am- 
brosian Codex published by A. Ceriani, Translatlo syra Peschitto 
Veteris Testamenti ex cod. ambrosiano, Milan, 1876 seq.^ The 
London Polyglot has been generally consulted in this Comm. 

(2) The Ambrosian ' Syro-Hexaplar ' text has been sump- 
tuously published by Ceriani in photographic facsimile, Codex 
syro-hexaplaris ambrosianus, 1874, as vol. 7 of his Monumenta 
sacra et profana, Milan.^" It is a literal translation of a copy of 
Origen's Hexapla made, as the scribal notes attest, for Paul of 
Telia (Telia de-Mauzelath), in 616-7. It is provided with the 
Origenic asterisks and obeli, and with an extensive apparatus of 
variant rdgs. in the marg., mostly ascribed to Aq., 0, Sym., as 
the case may be. The colophons of the bks. attest this origin, 
asserting, variously, that the copy was made from the Hexapla, 
Tetrapla or even Heptapla. The text is practically the Syriac 
counterpart of the unique ' Septuagint ' Gr. text noticed above. 
For Dan. they have identical colophons: "It was written from 
copies having this subscription : written from the Tetrapla, with 
which it has been compared." The colophon to Prov. states 
that the original was in the hands of Pamphilus and Eusebius; 

» Sec M. J. Wyngaarden, The Syr. VS of I he Bk. of Dan., Lpzg., 1923 (Univ. Penn. 
Thesis), p. 15. Some variant rdgs. are given in the London Polyglot, vol. 6, pp. 37 /. 

'"It had been previously edited by Norberg, 1787, and in part by Middeldorpf, 
1835, and the textof Dan. by C. Bugati, Z)a«. 5ec. e(f. LA'X . . . ex cod. syro-esthran- 
gelo, etc., Milan, 1788. For the MS and its history s. Ceriani's preface; Field, Proleg. 
to his Hex., p. Ixvii seq. ; Bludau, p. 26 Jf. ; Swete, O.T., 3, p. xiii. Int., 112/. Also s. 
in general and for a detailed comparison of the texts of the Syro-IIex. and the Chigi 
MS, Lohr, ZATW 1895, pp. 75/-, u)iJj.; 1896, pp. 17/. 



the colophon to Isaiah tells that those scholars corrected the 
text from 'the library of Origen.' The contents of this text will 
be treated in connection with the Hexaplaric revisions, §14. 

(3) There may be noted finally a Daniel text in the remains 
of Jacob of Edessa's revision of the O.T.; a ms of it is in Paris, 
s. Field, Hex., i, 649/., for a description, and for further state- 
ment s. Baumstark, Gesch. d. syr. Lit., 251, n. 2. 

e. Arabic. 

There is only one type of ancient Arabic text of Dan. in print, 
namely, the identical text in the Paris and London Polyglots. 
On this text s. the full treatment by H. S. Gehman, 'The "Poly- 
glot" Arabic Text of Daniel and Its Affinities,' JBL 44 (1925), 
327-352; outside of studies on the Pentateuch this is the most 
thorough treatment of any bk. of the Arabic Bible. As A it will 
be considered below in §14. 

A tr. of Dan. into Arabic in Heb. characters was made by the 

great Jewish master Saadia, first part of the loth cent. This 

has been published by H. Spiegel (s. Bibliography). It is of 

•great exegetical interest and will be cited currently in the Comm. 

Saadia often avails himself of interpretative paraphrases. 

For very interesting evidence for an early translation of the 
Bible into Arabic in Spain, s. introduction to Gehman's mono- 
graph, and to his art. in Speculum, 1, 219. There may be noted 
here two references to early Muslim use of Dan., given by 
Margoliouth, Early Development of Mohammedanism: p. 41, a 
son of the conqueror of Egypt read the works of Dan. and made 
prophetical calculations therefrom (Tabari, ii, 399); and p. 235, 
cf. p. 241, Abu Nu'aim identified the Stone of c. 2 with Mo- 

/. Other languages. 

No Ethiopic text exists in print. 

Holmes-Parsons gives (s. Pref. to Gen., p. iv 5e^.), apparently 
via translations, variants from printed edd. of the Armenian, 
Georgian and Slavonic Bibles, the last-named from the Ostro- 
gozok and Moscow edd. Of these the Armenian is of special 
interest for criticism, but having no control over the original 
the writer has made no reference to it. Dr. Gehman plans to 
make a critical study of it. 


However, one Slavic VS has been used in this apparatus, 
namely the Slavic VS (appearing in German tr.) printed in 
parallelism with the Gr. text of Hipp.'s comm. published by 
Bonwetsch. This version, as will be noticed in §12, is of critical 
value, at times offering a better text than its Gr. partner. 

A Hebrew tr. of the Aram, of Dan. and Ezra is presented by 
Kennicott's ms 240 in parallel column with the Bible texts. 
The MS was written by a scribe Menahem in 1327, according 
to de Rossi, vol. i, p. Ixiii. It has been discussed by I. L. 
Schulze, Chaldaicorum Danielis et Esrae capitum inter pretatio 
hebraica, Halle, 1782. The tr. follows the text of ^, is probably 
not earlier than the loth cent., but is of interest as representa- 
tive of current Jewish exegesis; s. Bertholdt, Daniel, 52, note. 
Another ms, Ken. 512, gives a similar tr. of the Aram, sections 
at the end of the respective bks.; it does not appear to have 
been studied. 


As indicated in §10, a (i) and d (2), we are confined for the 
earliest Gr. tr. of our bk. {(B) to two practically identical copies, 
albeit in different languages, the Chigi Gr. ms (^*") and the 
Syro-Hexaplar {(B^). Ever since their comparatively modern 
publication in the i8th cent., scholars have been keenly inter- 
ested in the character and worth of that translation. The most 
recent extensive study of it is that of Bludau, 'Die alexandri- 
nische tjbersetzung d. Buches Daniel,' 1897. He has collated 
most thoroughly the work of preceding scholars and contributes 
much in the way of elucidation, although his work is more im- 
portant for its accumulation of material and registration of diffi- 
culties than for solutions obtained. The problem as to the 
character of (B is expressed in the pertinent section, §4, in 
which the author sums up the views of scholars: "Fast alle 
Beurtheiler . . . machen dem tJbersetzer zum Vorwurf Willkiir, 
Unkenntniss, Tendenzkramerei, Falschung, u.s.w. Noldeke 
nennt ihn einen 'Pfuscher,' u. Field bemerkt: 'Danielem ab 
Alexandrino absurde conversum est.' . . . Nur wenige ... [of 
moderns, Cornill, Bevan, Behrmann, von Gall] scheinen sich 
vom Banne dieses Urtheils ein wenig frei gemacht zu haben." 

Bludau proceeds, p. 31, to make an acute critical distinction 


between cc. 3-6, at which most of the condemnation is directed, 
and the rest of the bk. For this balance the present writer's 
opinion, independently attained, agrees with Bludau's, that a 
careful study relieves much of the odium that has been cast 
upon the translation. The translator worked with three draw- 
backs : first, the inherent difficulty all translators have ever since 
contended with, the intentionally mystifying subject-matter of 
the apocalyptic portions hampering interpretation; secondly, 
the text with which he worked, especially in the last three cc, 
was to all appearances execrably written; and finally Aram, and 
not Heb. was his vernacular. This last point has not been spe- 
cifically diagnosed in the several summaries of characteristics, 
e.g., Bevan, pp. 48-52, Behrmann, p. xxxi. See for typical cases 
the Notes at 8^^ eVl to TrpoaTay/xa /ctX., and 11'^ eV opKO). 

These points are rightly insisted upon by Bludau, who comes 
to the final judgment that the tr. is a ' staunenswerthe Leistung' 
(p. 87). But he has not recognized one feature, the observation 
of which clears up the greatest difficulties: the presence of genu- 
ine glosses, both primary and secondary, which may occur lines 
away from their proper destination (e.g., eW Kaipov avvrekeCa'; 
1 2 Ms gloss to a lacuna in v.^), and also of doublet translations. 
The Notes will abundantly illustrate this statement, and for 
ocular proof reference is made to the tabulated criticisms of (& 
glib. 12 ^j^(j g24-27 a.t the end of the respective cc. When we have 
analyzed such portions we see that the translator worked faith- 
fully word by word, especially in the obscure passages, and that 
the present muddled condition is largely due to the shuffling 
into the text of true glosses or doublets which once stood in 
the marg. An exactly similar case has occurred in almost all 
MSS of at end of c. 9; s. Note at end of that chap. These 
glosses, and in some cases the duplicates, are evidently mostly 
prior to the Origenian revision, which itself has tended further 
to cover up original <S; for we have always to bear in mind that 
we are dealing with a thoroughgoing Hexaplaric text, and hence 
'Septuagint' is a doubly erroneous term. It would be worth 
while for some student to attempt the reconstruction of original 
(^, rejecting the Hexaplaric additions, correcting manifest errors 
of text-tradition, transferring the glosses to the marg., and ar- 
ranging doublets in parallel columns. Literarily the translator 
was worthy of such a task, for he was a writer of skill in Greek and 


of ingenious spirit. We may note such elegances as a.'ywvLOi ii", 
KUTTTeLP ii2^ avvr\\oir)6e 2'*^, avdo^pC 31^, the dramatic term 
KaTucTTpocp'^ 722^ j^l^g neat 'sophists and philosophers' i^°, 'Kit- 
tim' 11''°= 'Romans'; the avoidance of monotonous repetition 
of names by ol irpoyeypa/x/xevoi 7,^, For an example of ingenuity 
may be cited the tr. of jniynn ]''Din 2^ 'be dismembered,' by 
irapahet'yixaTt.a-OricrecrOe 'be made an example of,' as though 
jiQl = irapdSeLjfia^ giving capital sense. Space forbids here 
further listings of the characteristics of (1. 

As observed, cc. 4-6 must be considered separately. See the 
Notes appended to those cc. resp. in the Comm. and cf. Bludau, 
§§18-20. In the Notes the conclusion is reached that there is 
considerable evidence for a translation from a Sem. copy which 
is responsible for much of the additions, largely midrash, now 
in (S. The case would be comparable to a similar origin of the 
Apocryphal Prayer, Interlude, Benediction in c. 3 by progres- 
sive interpolation (s. above, §4); n.b., the bombastic character 
of that Interlude. The phenomenon appears to point to the 
actual circulation of cc. 3-6 as a distinct collection of stories at 
some stage (n.b., the Gr. Lectionaries appear to contain only 
these cc), a point perhaps worthy of consideration in regard 
to the compilation of the bk. Another view {e.g., J. D. Mi- 
chaelis, Bev., Kamp.) holds to a separate tr. of those cc, which 
after attaining its present garbled form was borrowed by the 
translator of the other cc. in editing the whole bk. But the proof 
presented from vocabulary is not stringent. 

The recognition of the character of (^ and of the fatalities 
that happened to the Sem. 'Vorlage' and then to the copies of 
text, diminishes the range of possible corrections of ^ from that 
quarter. The very ingenuity of the translator must put us on 
guard against accepting his facile translations as representing a 
better text than ^. The lists assembled by the writer for cases 
where (^ may be used against ^ yield a small modicum of posi- 
tive betterments, many of them hanging in the balance. 

In the light of this view, Jahn's thoroughgoing adoption of ^ 
(Das Buck Dan., 1904) as representing the original text, which 
he reverts into Heb. as the language of that original, results 
only in an exercise in Hebrew composition, which may be left 
to Jewish literati. An earlier, more moderate opinion but spe- 
cifically challenging Bludau's judgment of the worth of the text 


of ® is that of Riessler, Das Buck Dan., iSgg. Of this booklet 
of 56 pp. only a half, pp. 28-52, is devoted to a treatment of 
certain select passages for the defence of the writer's theories, 
one of which is that adopted by Jahn that the original language 
of the whole bk. was Heb., and that this was the text before 
the translator. And similarly Charles, Daniel, p. xxx, comments 
on the value of (^•. "A long-sustained and minute study of the 
text and versions has led him [the writer] to conclude that it is 
just in these chapters (cc. 4-6) that the LXX makes its greatest 
contribution to the reconstruction of the original text, particu- 
larly in chap, iv." Such theories appear to the writer entirely 
baseless, as will appear in the Comm. 

As for the date of (^, some of its phraseology appears in our 
Greek i Mac, although not to the extent sometimes assumed. 
Of the correspondences listed by Bludau, p. 8, n. 6, only the 
following are at all significant: Mac. i^ HXrjdvvav kukcl eV r^ jfj 
= 12'': Mac. i^^ eirecrav rpav/xariaL ttoWol = n-^j Mac. i^^ 
^SeXvjfia iprj /xco(T€Q)<; = n^ij Mac. V^- ^^ KaOapi^eiv ra a<^La = 
8". As for /3S. ip., that may have arisen contemporaneously 
with Antiochus' sacrilege. Comm. have long observed the iden- 
tical phrase airripeiaaTO aura iv tw eiScoXeio) avrov i^ = i Esd. 
2^, and so the origin of (S of both bks. from the same hand has 
been proposed by Gwyn, DCB ' Theodotion,' note p. 977 ; Thack- 
eray, DB I, 761 b; Riessler, with a long list of (often merely 
nominal) parallels, pp. 52-56; Torrey, Ezra Studies, 84. On 
rather scanty evidence, that the Jewish historian Eupolemus, 
c. 150 B.C. (text given by Swete, Int., 370 = Eus., Praep., ix, 31) 
knew (S of 2 Ch. 12^-^-, Torrey holds, p. 82, that the OGr. tr. of 
Ch.-Ezr.-Neh. (containing 2 Esd.) existed by the middle of the 
2d cent. If so, with the equation of (B of that series and of 
Dan., the latter would then precede the Gr. of i Mac, which is 
quite likely, as the Gr. of the latter bk. cannot be earlier than 
100 B.C. Torrey holds, p. 83, that the home of the tr. of his (B» 
text "may well have been Egypt," a position naturally to be 
assumed. This is corroborated by (S's rendering of "l!ik7(2n 
Dan. i^ by A^teaSpi^ simply an Egyptian transliteration of the 
Sem.; a parallel Coptism is found in the Egyptian Cod. A, 
BapTacrap for BaXraaap (s. on that codex §14). 

For the Hexaplaric additions, which are for the most part 
noted in <B^ and (1^ by asterisk and obelus (more correctly 


and consistently in the latter), s. §14 on the Hexapla. For the 
usurpation of (S by 0, entailing almost its extinction, s. §13. 


Before the end of the 2d Christian cent, another translation 
than that of ^ was making its way into the use of the Church, 
and within the first half of the 3d cent, it had become mistress 
of the field. This is the translation assigned by all Patristic and 
MS evidence to Theodotion, whose age is traditionally put in 
the second half of the 2d cent, after Christ. On this subject s. 

The MS evidence for this version in its earliest form is found 

in the Gr. and in two sub-versions from the latter, the OLat. 
and Sahidic-Coptic. This triple chain of evidence is distin- 
guished by the absence of the marks of the Origenian revisions, 
so that it must be assigned as a tradition to an age anterior to 
the middle of the 3d cent. 

a. The Greek B Group. 

We possess in the eldest of the uncials, the Codex Vaticanus, 
the best type of 0's text. This apparently dogmatic statement 
is supported by all the tests tried by the writer. That text 
stands almost alone in its thoroughgoing correspondence with 
the OLat. and (E^, and it is the one which, with exceptions to 
be noted in a subsecjuent section, is the basis of all subsequent 
revisions. Empirical analysis has discovered mss 8g 130 as 
standing closest to B, more distantly (with Origenian elements) 
26 42; and the text in Hippolytus (h) which is freshly adduced 
in this Comm. has particular interest in both its Gr. and Slav, 
forms. It is adequate to consider B as the master text of its 
group and to observe its characteristics. 

This high opinion of B is expressed despite the recognition of 
certain shortcomings; but it is as text far cleaner than any of 
its colleagues, and is infinitely superior to Cod. A, a most imper- 
fect document. Naturally the interest of critical scholars has 
been devoted to (^, but unfortunately B has been neglected 
both in respect to its intrinsic worth and to critical study of it 
as an undoubted representative of a pure Theodotionic text, the 
like of which can only be discovered with pains in other parts 


of the Gr. O.T. Withal scholars have perpetrated the mistake 
of baldly citing B as though it were ultimate, with no attempt 
to criticise it apart from its group and to recover the original 
text. Accordingly, in this Comm. special attention has been 
paid to B and its congeners, with the purpose of arriving at 
that original. 1 

For faults of all kinds in the text of B the writer has counted 
some 65 cases, in most of which B is supported by very respect- 
able authority. It contains a small number of unique scribal 
errors. About 25 interpolations have been counted, but most 
of them from (S, some of which are supported by IC, hence 
primitive contaminations. The resultant verdict agrees with 
that expressed upon the text of B in the N.T. by Westcott-Hort, 
Int., 233 /.: "The scribe by no means reached a high standard 
of accuracy, and on the other hand his slips are not proportion- 
ately bad ... he occasionally omits necessary portions of 
text," etc. 

There are many cases where © as represented by B has mis- 
read or mispronounced his text or had a faulty text (some 30 
cases have been listed); e.g., 2^^- ^^ jli^n with two different erro- 
neous translations; 8^^ DSS2 = W ««; 12^ QJ? T* = yvaoa-ovrai; 
etc. Judgment of these errors in so difficult a text as Dan. (a 
large proportion of the errors occur in c. 11) must be lenient. 

The well-known characteristics of appear in B, and they 
need not be diagnosed at length here. His tr. depends primarily 
upon (S, and hence his independent value often fails, especially 
in difficult passages, where he simply repeats (Bi, a weakness 
common to all translators. At the same time he handles ^ gen- 
erally with fine discrimination; the opening vv. of the bk. might 
be observed for this point. His characteristic of literalness ap- 

* With the development of photographic processes it is only sluggishness when 
scholarship does not acquaint itself with the exact texts of MSS. The advance now 
needed is the formulation of a critical apparatus to a group such as that represented 
by A or B, etc., and to attempt to restore the basis of the group. And this work 
should be done quite apart from thought of eiJect on the text of i^; that is another 
matter. Another requirement is the study of each of the great mss in extenso 
throughout the O.T., the kind of work which has been done in the N.T., but which 
fails utterly in the O.T. field. What is said about the characteristics and the excel- 
lences of B is based entirely on its text for Dan. Now exactly opposite results are 
obtained by Torrey, p. 95, in the comparison of A and B. For his Biblical portion: 
"The best uncial by far is A; and the worst by far is B." What shall we say, then, to 
these things in the case of A and B as wholes ? 


pears in his frequent transliterations of words (sometimes with 
reason, e.g., ^aBSeiu^ possibly a current loan from the Sem., 
sometimes with tact in case of an unknown word, e.g., (j)opOofx/x€iv 
i^^). His usual but not constant word-for-word tr. of the Heb. 
lands him in frequent barbarisms, especially in the case of assim- 
ilation of the new with the old, e.g., 6^^ ^^^K Withal he drops 
his literalism quite often, as though impatient of Sem. stylisms 
and repetitiousness. 

One feature of B, worthy of notice in text criticism, is the fre- 
quency of abbreviation, ranging all the way from omission of 
single words of no essential importance to the abbreviation of 
repetitious phrases. In some cases ICCE^ do not run with B in 
these omissions, and the phenomenon must be regarded then 
as secondary. While often the omissions m'ght be ascribed to 
subsequent scribes, especially in cases of homocoteleuta, the 
writer has come to the conclusion that this tendency is an origi- 
nal characteristic of (Torrey has noticed the same for his sec- 
tion of B, p. 95, but charging them to 'incredible carelessness'). 
The lacunae can hardly be attributed to scribal losses, so well 
supported are they. In most cases (^ supports ^ as against 
B, and that combination is generally to be respected. A case 
of simplification from an original status where two parallel 
antique texts were once present in texts appears at end of 
c. 9, where B has selected one of them, with consequently the 
remission of the more interesting duplicate into the marg. of 
our Gr. edd. (s. Note at end of c. 9). In general B represents 
the authentic text of 'Theodotion' for Dan. 

A note is due on Hippolytus' Theodotionic text in his comm. 
to Dan.; see §10, a (2). The Biblical text used by Hipp, is 
present in double form, in Gr. and in Slavonic, and as the latter 
varies from the former to some extent we possess an inner appa- 
ratus for Hipp.'s text. In some cases the Slav, has better rdgs. 
than the Gr.; I note: 33007)^ p_ u^ (of Bonwetsch's edition); 
4"', p. 128; 5", p. 152; 68, p. 162; 79, p. 184; 8^ p. 250 (s. Notes 
ad loc). The Slav, text has thus its own tradition, a fact sug- 
gesting the worth of critical examination into the translations 
in that language. As the doubly witnessed text has not been 
studied hitherto for its bearing on text criticism, it is useful to 
note that it is very closely related to B, agreeing with the latter, 
in the large, in its characteristic rdgs. and omissions. In a few 


cases it is better than B, e.g., in the omission of e| opov^ 2^* 
(p. 56), and 8" (p. 250) Dlin = irapaxdrj, H conturhatum est, 
'cs. B ^pa-x^V- In two places Hipp, has independent renderings 
of ^, and this suggests that that Father had control of Heb. 
Compare the tradition about him as the ' Expositor of the Tar- 
gum' and his undoubted acquaintance with Rabbinic learning; 
s. Achelis (cited in the next note), pp. 1 13-120. The cases in 
point are 11", p. 300, and ii^°, p. 298. The not considerable 
variations from B are Hexaplaric-Lucianic, more particularly 
Lucianic. This latter characteristic belongs to the general prob- 
lem of ' pre-Lucianic rdgs.,' s. §12 end, §15 end. 

Now Hipp.'s text is one of our most primitive proofs not only 
for B but also for the tradition of 0.^ Bardenhewer, p. 68, and 
Bonwetsch, p. 2, assign the comm. to Dan. quite confidently to 
the time of Septimius Severus' persecution, 202 a.d., in this fol- 
lowed by Zahn and Harnack, as against Salmond, who places 
it 'a good deal later,' p. 1046. Whatever may be the fact in that 
point, Salmond's statement (p. 87^) that Hipp.'s activity may 
go back to the beginning of the last decade of the 2d cent, (he 
may have heard Irenaeus) argues for the existence of the Theo- 
dotionic tr. as authoritative well back into the 2d cent. The 
date of the Latin tr. of Irenseus being now held by many to be 
much later (z^. inf. [c]), this fact as to Hipp.'s text is of great im- 
portance. The 'pre-Lucianic rdgs.' in Hipp, point to a Syrian, 
Antiochian origin, as do also the OLat. texts, and Hipp, may 
have been instrumental as purveyor of that form of in con- 
trast to the B text, which is prob. of Egyptian origin. 

b. The Sahidic-C optic. 

My Hst of variations from B in the 56 vv. of the Sahidic num- 
bers all told about 20. This count includes particles and other 
easily variable factors. In many cases they help to correct B 
where it can otherwise be proved to be untrue to its group, e.g. 
the intrusion in 9^; in several cases there is correspondence with. 
m against B. The most frequent correspondences are with Q 
26 233 = l!f. This establishment of some links between the 
Coptic and Q agrees with the findings of Ceriani, De codice 

' See Salmond, 'Hipp.,' in DCB, and consult Bibliography under Achelis, Barden- 
hewer, Bonwetsch. 


marchaliano, etc., Rome, i8go, as reported by Swete, OTG 3, 
pp. viii seq. There are agreements with (S, also with some of 
the Origenic groups and so indirectly with Lu. Reference is 
made to the Note at the end of c. 9 for its interesting form of 
the text of the last vv. of that chap. 

This close correspondence between B and 01^ adds weight to 
my opinion that B represents the Egyptian type of 0, as against 
others, Palestinian and Syrian. As to the importance of 01^ 
the writer's belief has only grown stronger with repeated study 
that if the whole of the Sahidic Dan. existed it would be a 
worthy peer to B. 

c. The Old Latin. 

The sources of materials for this subject have been given 
above, §10, h (i). The OLat. ms texts are distinctly pre-Hexa- 
plaric, corroborating Burkitt's dictum upon Patristic citations 
that the OLat. nowhere exhibits the Hexaplaric earmarks.' And 
the text is in general that of B. Ranke has placed scholars in 
his debt by giving an apparatus of comparison of rdgs. with 
Holmes-Parsons, but with these drawbacks, that he has taken 
as his basis the faulty Sixtine text (against which the user of 
HP must always be on his guard), that he simply compares B 
with no attempt at criticism of its text, and finally that as a 
purely classical scholar he does not know the Sem. background. 
Also he often leaves unnoticed many evident faults of the texts 
that can be easily corrected.'* This OLat. material bears as a 
translation the same relation to its Gr. copy as the latter, 0, 
does to 1^, and hence the work of comparison is immensely sim- 
plified. 21 is of great value in showing the antiquity of errors, 
glosses, etc., in B, e.g., the doublet 2^- pectus et bracchia; and 
conversely it often exhibits a better rdg. which may also be in 
Gr. Mss, e.g., 2^° sapientia et uirtiis = Q alone = ^, the rest 
with a third glossed doublet, which also appears in Cassiodor, 
ad Ps. ci, -\- intellectus. As for agreements with the Gr. groups 
as against B the most correspondences are with the Lucianic 
group (14 cases), then with the Origenian mss (no Hexaplaric 
additions!), e.g., with A 13 cases, Q n cases, 106 10 cases, etc. 

' "No (asterisked) passage is found in any form of tiie African Latin," Rules of 
Tyconius, p. xcvi. 
* E.g., 8" sermone for SoXw arose from the misreading of 5. as Xoyw. 


The citations of the Patristic material have been given in 
§io. These numerous cases, which often present three or four 
parallels, have been fully digested for this work; much chaff had 
to be winnowed, but valuable gleanings were attained; cf. the 
Note on at end of c. 9 for a very important rdg. in Tertullian. 
The criticism of this whole material would be a work in itself, 
for which important preliminary studies have been made by 
Burkitt in his Rules of Tyconius and The Old Latin mid the 

It has generally been held that the earliest Patristic text using 
iH is the Latin Interpretation of Irenseus, whose Against the 
Heresies was probably written in the eighties of the 2d cent.^ 
This view of the early origin of IC of Irenseus has been upset by 
the studies of Jordan and Souter, who very positively refer the 
Latin tr. to the 4th cent.^ If this judgment be true, Irenaeus' 
primacy for the critical student of the OLat. is dislodged. But 
the Lat. of Iren. still remains incontestable proof of Iren.'s 
thoroughgoing text, for, as Burkitt remarks. Old Latin, p. 6, 
n. 2, the translator would have revealed traces of the Septua- 
gintal character of his original, if it had such. If, with Venables, 
p. 254, Irenaeus' birth is to be put between the limits 126 and 
136 A.D., the text of must be carried back into the first half of 
the 2d cent., when as a schoolboy he was initiated into the one 
text we know he used ; and at the other end there is the unadul- 
terated text of Hippolytus, providing us with a continuous 
catena for a large part of that cent. In addition to Irenaeus we 
have evidence for in the early part of the 3d cent, in Tertullian 
in part, while his scholar Cyprian uses both (S and 0, sometimes 
in conflate form.* 

Jerome's well-known criticism of 21 for its 'diuersa exempla- 

^ See now the Patristic apparatus presented by Dold, pp. 279/.; for an earlier 
listing, Bludau, De indole, 20 f. Oesterley has collated Ranke's Fragments and 
Patristic Citations for the Minor Prophets in JThSt., vols. 5, 6. 

^ So Venables, DCB 3, 258. All the citations from Dan. are found only in the 
Latin, with one exception, Dan 12' f- in i, 12, a citation from a heretic, which inter- 
estingly enough is from (8. 

' H. Jordan, 'Das Alter u. d. Herkunft d. latein. Ubersetzung d. Hauptwerkes d. 
Iren.,' Theol. Studien, Th. Zahn dargebracht, 1908, and Souter in Sanday and Turner, 
Novum Testamentum S. Irenaei, 1923; it may be noted that the editor Dr. Turner still 
remains unconvinced. Cf. rev. by Lagrange, RB 1924, 260 Jf. 

' See in general Burkitt, Old Latin and the Ilala. For a theory of a Marcionite 
Vetus Latina as the first attempt at a Latin tr. of the Bible s. d'Ales, Biblica, 4, 
1923, pp. 56/., esp. 85/. 


ria' and the ' interpretum uarietatem' (s. Kennedy, DB 3, 48) 
appears to be substantiated by the large amount of variation 
among the Patristic citations and the authentic texts of 21. It 
leads nowhere to make the hypothesis of an indefinite number 
of versions; this did not occur in the primitive Gr. Church. But 
it may be suggested that there arose early in the Latin-speaking 
Church an oral 'Targum,' since in important dogmatic and also 
popular passages a crystallized translation would have come in 
vogue, which itself allowed much room for variation even after 
it was written down. For instance, the Interpreter of Irenaeus 
with the Gr. before his eyes at the same time had the current 
Targum in his head; the latter would be modified by his schol- 
arly attention to the text as well as by existing variants in the 
oral translation. A study of these OLat. texts induces a high 
appreciation of the fidelity and, comparatively speaking, the 
scholarship of the early Latin translators. 

Finally, the problem of 'Lucianic' rdgs. in the OLat. must 
be touched upon. It has long been observed by students^ that 
the OLat. of the O.T. is markedly 'Lucianic' In his Par palimps. 
•wire, 410, Ranke lists in order the Gr. mss most closely corre- 
sponding to iC in the latter's variations from B; and the Lu- 
cianic MSS 22 36 48 51 231 stand, almost all, at the head of the 
Hst. The problem must be discussed in connection with Lucian, 
§15. There can be but one explanation, that Lucian himself 
used as a basic text one that varied primitively from that of B. 
That is, there existed a Syrian or Antiochian form of ©, which, 
as iC shows, early made its way from Syria to the West and 
became the basis of the OLat. translation. Direct connections 
of the West with Syria, not only via Egypt and the north coast 
of Africa, as so often assumed, must be allowed. Irenaeus came 
from Asia Minor. Hippolytus probably came from the East. 
Note also that on Irenaeus' authority Theodotion was an Ephe- 
sian. The problem is accordingly connected with that of the 
Western Readings in N.T. text criticism. Sanday, as cited by 
Kennedy, has suggested that the text of the N.T. in OLat. and 
Syriac came from Antioch. It can be positively insisted upon 
that despite the alleged 'Lucianisms' none of the Hexaplaric 

' See Kennedy, Z)5 3, 61/., Schijrer, G7F3,34.s, 431, n. 14, Dieu, ' Retouches lucia- 
niques sur quelles tcxtes de la vieille version latine (I et II Samuel),' RB 16, 372^-, 
summary, p. 403. 


interpolations, none of the characteristic Lucianic doublets ap- 
pears in 31. 

Finally it is to be remarked that with this coincidence of 2j, 
(E^ and Patristic citations with B the text of the latter must 
represent that of back toward 200 a.d. at least; and this judg- 
ment, reached independently, agrees with that of Westcott and 
Hort for the N.T.,7«/., 222: the text of B and Sinaiticus is 'essen- 
tially a text of the second or early third century.' 

§13. theodotion: triumph over the old greek; age; 
the problem of ' ur-theodotion.' 

Little direct information is at hand for the replacement of 
the Old Greek ('Septuagint') VS of Dan. by 0. The triumph, 
starting as we have seen in the 2d cent., rapidly became an ac- 
complished fact, as witnessed by sub-versions which go back 
at least to the beginning of the 3d cent. Jerome gives the fullest 
statement in the Preface to his comm.: "Danielem prophetam 
iuxta septuaginta interpretes Domini Saluatoris ecclesiae non 
legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione, et hoc cur acciderit nescio. 
. . . Hoc unum afhrmare possum, quod multum a veritate dis- 
cordet, et recto iudicio repudiatus est." Origen in his Hexapla 
fully edited and revised both (S» and of Dan., although his 
work in other bks. shows that he depended upon for filling up 
lacunae in ($, e.g., Jer. and Job. It is assumed by many (s. 
Schiirer, GJV 3, 442) that the immediate cause of rejection of 
(^ was its false interpretation of the Weeks, c. 7 (s. Note at end 
of that chap.); but the patent incorrectness of ® was sufficient 
ground to prefer a better translation, which had its own good 

Of Theodotion we know next to nothing as to his person and 
date.^ The earliest mention of him is in Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 
iii, 24: "Theodotion the Ephesian made a translation, and 
Aquila the Pontian, both Jewish proselytes." No confidence 
can be placed in Epiphanius' statement, De mens, et pond., §17, 
placing him under Commodus' reign, c. 180, which is at once 
contradicted by Irenaeus' use of (s. also Gwyn, arguing for a 
mistake in the imperial names). As Irenasus names him before 

'See Gwyn, 'Theodotion,' DCB; Bludau, De indole, §3; Swete, Int., 42^.; 
Schiirer, GJV 2, 439 J. 


Aquila, there is clear presumption that he antedated the latter, 
and the convention of naming him after the latter has no more 
reason than the fact that in Origen's columns Aquila preceded 
Theodotion; it is unfortunate that his presumable priority, 
urged by Schiirer, p. 442, is ignored in the authoritative works.^ 
Cf. Jer.'s ignorance as to this translator's age, in the Pref. to his 
comm.: "qui utique post aduentum Christi incredulus fuit." 

But the age of the translator Theodotion, which must logi- 
cally be referred back at least to the first third of the 2d Chris- 
tian cent., cannot date for us the rise of the ' Theodotionic ' ele- 
ments in the Greek Bible. The problem has long been noticed 
and solutions attempted. Credner, Beitrdge zur Einlcitmig in 
die bibl. Schriften, 1838, 2, 61 ^., proposed that there was an 
early Christian version of Dan. which would explain the N.T. 
citations. Gwyn's hypothesis is the boldest, DCBp. 976: "Side 
by side with the Chisian LXX there was current among the 
Jews, from pre-Christian times, another version of Daniel, more 
deserving of the name, claiming to belong to the LXX collec- 
tion and similar in general character to the LXX versions of 
other books of the Hagiographa; that this was the version known 
to the author of the bk. of Baruch . . . and to St. Matthew," 
etc. Swete's criticism of this position, Int., p. 49, is cautious and 
non-committal. Bludau in his full discussion of the evidence 
from Dan. (Die alex. Ubers., §2, p. 23) comes to the result of an 
older Gr. tr. 'reformed' by the historic Theod. of the 2d Christian 
cent. Schiirer expresses himself similarly, p. 442: "Dieses ganze 
Material lasst nur zwei Erklarungen zu: entweder Theod. ist 
alter als die Aposteln, oder es hat einen 'Theod.' vor Theod. 
gegeben, d. h. eine Revision der LXX in ahnlichem Sinne, die 
dann von Theod. weitergefuhrt worden ist." 

Only a brief resume of the evidence, and that for Dan. alone, 
can be given here; for fuller data reference can be made to 
Bludau, I. c. 

In Clement of Alexandria, c. 150-200 (not included by Bludau) 
the citations are (after Stilhlin's ed. in GCS with cross-reference 
to Potter's ed.): 

Dan. 2"^: .S'/ro;;?.,i,4, p. 16 (P. p. 330) = with ' Lucianic ' -f- 

' Sec the author's Samaritans, 77, 2Q2, for Samaritan reminiscences of Theod.; 
there is ref. to a 'Targum of Nathanael,' i.e., Theodotion. 


73=-: Paed., ii, 10, p. 222 (P. p. 235) = 0. 

7^'' : ib., iii, 3, p. 246 (P. p. 262) = 0. 

8"f-: Strom., i, 21, p. 91 (P. p. 408) = (Stiihlin's text much 

Q^'*-": ib., p. 78 (P. p. 393) in general = 0; s. further Note 
at end of c. 9. 

12" f-: ib., p. 91 (P. p. 409) == 0, but hodrivat for hodrjaeTai 
with V Q 62 Lu. al. 

Justin Martyr (f c. 165) cites 7^-28 at length, Tryph., xxxi. His 
other citations are all from the same chapter, except 2^^ in 
Tryph. , Ixx, i, where the text is indifferent between (^ and SI; 
and 11^^ in ex. 2, where (B is the basis (n.b. e^aWa). Archam- 
bault's ed. of Trypho in Hammer and Lejay's Textes et Docu- 
ments has been consulted. Swete has conveniently presented the 
long passage from c. 7 in parallel with (^ and 0, Int., p. 421, to 
which the reader may refer. My result of comparison is that 
this mosaiclike composition is not due to the intrusion of a later 
scholiast into Justin's original (B text; the care with which the 
variations are made points to the first hand. In most cases the 
intentional variations from CH were made where ($ has a cor- 
rupt or complicated text, for which offered improvements. 

Of three 'Apostolic Fathers' (Gebhardt's text), toward the 
end of the ist cent.. Shepherd of Hcrmas appears indifferent be- 
tween (^ and 0, except for the citation of 6 -^'-^^ in Vis., iv, 
2, 4 against (B.^ The citation of 2^^ in Sim., ix, 2, i is indepen- 

Ep. Barnabas, iv, 4 /., contains memoriter citations of 724-27. 
against Bludau's judgment that (S is visible, nothing definite 
can be postulated; Swete, Int., 48, holds that the correspondence 
is closer with 0. 

Ep. Clement, xlv, recaUing Dan. 6'^"'^^, is closer to e^XrjOr] 
than to ^ €ppi(j)7}. In c. xxxiv eXetTOvpyovu = 710 vs. (S 
edepdirevov. For the inversion of the numerals, 'myriad myri- 
ads,' 'thousand thousands,' in company with old ecclesiastical 
use, s. Burkitt, Old Latin, 22; it follows Rev. 5^^ 

Josephus' Bible text has been variously diagnosed, but with- 
out positive results.^ 

' The writer also depends upon Sem. tradition in his reference to the angel who 
'stopped' (IJD) the mouth of the lions as 0eYpt i.e., i^eypc; s. 'Segri,' DCB 
Schiirer, 3, 441, for the discussions by J. Rendel Harris and Hort. 

•* See Bludau, Ryssel, and for other literature Schiirer, 3, 422. 


But the New Testament, with its wealth of citation from 
Dan., offers the best touchstone for the problem. To begin 
with the kindred Apocalj^se of John, we discover propinquity 
to both ($ and 0, often with apparent conflation, and equally 
with a sovereign independence of known Gr. texts. ^ The follow- 
ing cases of Theodotionic character may be noted and analyzed: 

Rev. 9-0 : Dan. 5-^ = 0, but ecScoXa = (g. 

Rev. 10^ f-: Dan. 12^= Qwjjioaev eV T(p^oiVTL=Q^(^ tov ^oivra. 

Rev. 11": Dan. 7-^ =0 irrcLei irokejiov /xera roiv a<yioiv vs. (S 
iroX. avvLard/xevop tt/oo? (0's plus has been introduced into (B 
v.^); the same correspondence at Rev. 13" but with more varia- 
tions in the fuller citation. 

Rev. 12^: Dan. io-° = 7ro\eixT]craL^ vs. (^ Siafj-dxecrOaL. 

Rev. i6i^: Dan. 121 the plus eTrt r. 77}? = Or., Lu., but i^ 
Trj 777. (Has this plus entered the Gr. of Dan. from Rev.? I 
have noticed some cases of the kind in Cod. A.) 

Rev. 196: Dan. io« = ox^ov, vs. <B 6opv(3ov. 

Over against these correspondences with are to be reckoned 
those with (&, some seven in number, while yet other reminis- 
cences are more or less independent of either. 

But the closest correspondence is found in Heb. ii^^,'' where 
ecfipa^ap arojxaTa Xeovrcov = Dan. 6-^ "^-^^ ive(f)p. ra ctto/jL. twv 
~Xe6v.^ (g failing here wholly. An interesting case, rather ignored 
in N.T. apparatus, is XiKpLrjaei Mt. ai^-* = Lu. 20^* from Dan. 
© 2^^. Further: Mt. 28^*^ =07^ (overlooked in N.T. apparatus) ; 
Ja. 1^2 fiaKdpLo<; avrjp 69 virofieret = 12^^ fia/c. 6 virofxivoiv vs. 
(^ i/x/xevcov. I Cor. !-■* ^ptajov ©eoO hvvapiiv k. ©eou ao^iav is 
a citation of the true text of ace. to Q ^^—%, vs. B al. The 
neighboring e^ov6evT)p,eva i Cor. i^s = 4" i^ovSePij/xa. 

But the most striking parallelism of an early Gr. document 
with of Dan. is found in the Epistle of Baruch, the date of which 
is now most commonly placed about a.d. jo.'' In Bar. 11^-2" is 

' Cf. Bludau, 'Die Apokalypse u. Theodotions Danielubersetzung,' Theol. Quartal- 
schrift, 1897, 1-26. The author holds that by the N.T. age a new tr. of Dan. had re- 
placed <&, which then was already antiquated, that tr. being eventually incorporated 
in ©. But some of the most striking correspondences of N.T. with lie outside of 
Dan. A critical survey of the O.T. citations in Rev. is given by Swete in his Apoca- 
lypse, Int., c. 13. 

* See Overbeck, TLZ 1885, col. 341. 

' But s. now R. R. Harwell's Yale thesis, The Principal Versions of Baruch, 1915. 
Cf. Thackeray's criticism in his Scpluagint and Jen is h Worship, pp. 85.^. Pp. 24 ff. 
he discusses the problem of 'Theodotion or t/r-Theodotion?' and expresses belief 
in the necessity of some such theory as the latter. 



found a long prayer mostly composed of excerpts, arbitrarily 
arranged, from Dan's prayer, c. 9. This appears from the fol- 
lowing exhibit of the order of the fragments of Dan. : vv. Sb. 10. 
15. lib. 10. 12. 13a. 8. 136. 14. 10. 15. 16. 17. 19c. 196. 18. 20. 
It is small wonder that the parallelism has induced scholars to 
make the basis of the Gr. Gwyn, p. 976, appears to have been 
the first to develop this thesis at length; he is corroborated by 
Schijrer, GJV 3, 441, and so TLZ 1904, 255^. 

The many agreements are obvious; Gwyn has presented the 
most striking ones. But the disagreements must not be ignored. 
Bar. i' agrees with ^ v." reading eirl t. KaKol<;^ which om. 
Bar. i^" reads for ^ v." "]nn eKoWrjOr^^ where (S iirrjXOe. 
Bar. i^^, 2^" use the non-Theod. word irpocndyixara. But the 
crucial case for showing that the Gr. translator was citing ulti- 
mately (memoriier?) from the Heb. appears at 2^^ = Dan. v.^^, 
where he follows a different syntax as well as a different trans- 
lation from (^ and 0, differing also from the pointing of M. 
That is, he is making his own free version of ^. 

To interpret these phenomena we have to realize that the 
passage in Bar. is a prayer following Biblical and liturgical 
forms. In passing over into the Hellenistic Synagogue Gr. Tar- 
gums arose, these for long oral in character. In the present case 
the translator had language ready made, which again he might 
correct from his knowledge of the original Heb. 

And this argument presents experimentally the writer's judg- 
ment on the problem of 'Ur-Theodotion.' That there existed 
some such body of received translation before the Christian age 
lies beyond doubt; but we must not too quickly assume a writ- 
ten version. Very much can be explained by the hypothesis of 
a Hellenistic oral Targum, necessary in the first place for cor- 
rection of faulty renderings, and especially of lacunas in (^. 
(It is found that early 'Theodotionic' rdgs. generally appear in 
such cases.) And then we may link up this oral tradition with 
the Theodotion of Church tradition of the early part of the 2d 
Christian cent. He is the Hellenistic Onkelos, whose work was 
facilitated by the presence of a large amount of customary oral 
translation of the Scriptures, possessed by him memoriter. Of 
course such a theory does not exclude the possibility of literary 
predecessors of the historical Theodotion. 



In his Hexapla (the Tetrapla is included in this generic term) 
Origen revised both ^ and 0, the Gr. and Syr. texts of the for- 
mer offering the best example we have of the Origenian appa- 
ratus. To a large extent he entered the same plusses into both, 
but in general most of the lacunae were in the abbreviating 0. 
But in very many cases the conflate character of (8» is due to 
earlier revisions; s. §§ii. 12. As for the text, the great bulk 
of the Gr. mss are Hexaplaric (Lucian being sub-Hexaplaric), a 
contamination that has not spared one of them, even B. 

Most of the work for the present apparatus has been devoted 
to the Hexaplaric group. The argumentation for the results 
obtained have been presented by the writer in JBL 1925, pp. 
287-300, 'The Hexaplaric Strata in the Greek Texts of Dan.,' 
followed by the corroborative studies of C. D. Benjamin, 'Col- 
lation of Holmes-Parsons 23 (Venetus)-62-i47 in Daniel from 
Photographic Copies,' pp. 303-326, and H. S. Gehman, 'The 
"Polyglot" Arabic Text of Dan. and Its Affinities,' pp. 327-352. 

The stress has been applied to Cod. A, an alleged master 
codex, and the Venetian Codex V (now recognized as an uncial 
= HP 23) and the Oxford cursives 62 147. The last three have 
been collated by Benjamin from photographs procured by the 
Yarnall Library in the Philadelphia Divinity School for this 

The chief result obtained is that V 62 147 represent the 
earliest form of Origen's revision of 0, a position which can be 
adjudged from Benjamin's collation and the comparisons reg- 
istered there with the other groups. The group in question is 
the basis of a subsequent revision — critically retrograde in its 
approximation toward the elder Textus Receptus — represented 
by what we may call the A-group; and again this was succeeded 
by the Lucianic group. For the group V 62 147 the descriptive 
epithet 'Palestinian' has been taken, as typifying Origen's own 
work = Or^; for the A-group the epithet Constantinopolitan, 
on the h}T:)othesis that it represents the Eusebian revision or- 

' The whole of V in photographic copy is now in the Library of that School, sub- 
ject to the use of scholars. Similar reproduction ol the whole of 62 and 147 is now 
in process of preparation for the same Library. 


dered by Constantine for the use of the Church in his new cap'- 
tal (Eus., Vita Const., iv, 36. 37) = Or^. Or^ and Lu. would 
then be approximately contemporary revisions, made for iden- 
tical ends, of the Origenian work, one for Constantinople, the 
other for Antioch. And, however the origin of the A-group is 
to be explained, the writer has more and more become con- 
vinced of the correctness of his opinion that the above hypothe- 
sis explains all the essential facts of the problem. 

For Or^ nothing more need be added than has already been 
published. Of the three mss, 62 147, although degraded and 
contaminated types, are closer to the mother text than V, which 
has rather made an eclectic choice of rdgs. (largely marked with 
the Hexaplaric asterisks). The group is Aquilanic in the sec- 
ondary sense that it presents Origen's work in its closest ap- 
proximation to his Jewish master. 

For Or^, of the Gr. mss A Q F 106 35 230 42 (the cursives 
arranged in the order of their worth as empirically determined) 
are the best representatives of the group; with them go the 
Arabic (A) and the Bohairic-Coptic (QI'O- Codex A must be 
extremely discounted as a witness; an early listing has disclosed 
more than 175 errors, some of them most glaring,^ a large num- 
ber solecisms of A. Its closest mate in character and faults is 
106, the two serving admirably to supplement one another. 
Cod. A is Egyptian in physical origin, this revealed for Dan. 
by its Coptic pronunciations, /Sapraaap i\ afxepaap i^ (s. ad 
locc. and JBL 298, n. 12), but Constantinopolitan in text, as a 
codex of the Melchite Church in Egypt. Its colleague A is then 
the early tr. made for the Arabic-speaking Melchites. A is 
infinitely superior in the text it represents to A and its Gr. fel- 
lows, and is the truest specimen of Or^ that we have; it must 
have been made from an early authoritative codex of which A 
is a base offspring.^ See in general Gehman's full and important 

' No attempt has therefore been made to register all the rdgs. of A in che Notes; 
they are at hand for the curious in Swete's apparatus. The codex only has value as 
one of a group. 

' Ryssel announced categorically, TLZ 1S95, 561, similar results for the relation 
of A to A and for the avoidance by the former of the latter's glaring errors. It may 
be observed that A follows A's enumeration of the ' Visions ' ; but through (editorial ?) 
neglect c. i is not so marked in the London Polyglot, but c. 2 is Vision 3, etc., prov- 
ing that Susanna preceded. An independent partial chapter distinction appears at 
i', 2", 4', but then lapses. The Paris Polyglot has the additions in their proper 
order, but no 'Vision' rubric until c. 2 = Vis. 3, with an additional chapter rubric 
at 3". 


discussion of the whole subject. Finally the Bohairic appears, 
from the translation, which has been carefully examined, to be 
a true and thoroughgoing representative of this group, probably 
superior again to A. Dr. Gehman fortunately promises a criti- 
cal study of it. 

The Armenian VS has not been studied. It apparently pre- 
sents many striking identities with Or^; and its possible rela- 
tions to Or^ and Lu. deserve careful examination. 

A word is to be said on the very individual Cod. Q. Its text 
is distinctly Origenian, in its plusses and in its faults, as a com- 
parison with A easily shows. It has several Hexaplaric anno- 
tations (s. §10, a [3]) indicating its pedigree and its scholarly 
character. At 2-° it gives with 21 alone the correct rdg. Bwafxt^ 
for o-ff^eo-t?; 51^ end, a unique, poss. authentic, plus, kul eiirev 
vat ^aaiXev Kai uirev; ni* with t,t, 232 irapa^acrewv from Sym. 
vs. \oL/xo)v^ also some errors of its owm, e.g., 8^ Svaiv^ gn 
e7r\t]6vv6r] (but neither absurd). The prevailing theory is that 
Q represents the Egyptian Hesychian text, for which in Dan. 
some correspondences with (H^ and IC may be noted. 

For the considerable balance of minor pre-Origenian varia- 
tions from B in these groups s. §15. 


Field {Hex., i, p. Ixxxiv seq.), corroborated by Lagarde, gave 
demonstration for the recognition of texts of Lucianic origin.^ 
For the Prophets, including Dan., he selected as Lucianic HP 
22 36 48 51 62 90 93 144 147 233 308. Most of these titles have 
been accepted by subsequent students of the Prophets.^ The 
writer's independent study of the text of Dan. revealed a solid 
group of five mss, often unanimous, often standing alone, obvi- 
ously representing Lucian, namely the group 22 36 48 51 231. 
Of these all but 231 are contained in Field's list, while they are 
the ones which Cornill in his Ezechiel, p. 65 ff., signalized as 
Lucianic. With this group are to be associated some others 
which run closely with it, esp. 229 (a ms of Theodoret's comm. 
containing most of the Bible text), and the Chigi Theodotion 

' See the convenient summary of the bibliography by R. K. Yerkes, 'The Lucianic 
Version of the O.T. as illustrated from Jeremiah 1-3,' JBL igi8, 163. 

^ See Yerkes, p. 171, for the selections propounded by Cornill, Klostermann, Nes- 
tle, Liebmann, Procksch, Burkitt. Cf. also Montgomery, JBL 1925, 293. 


text, c' As for 62 147 the theory advanced in §14 has de- 
fined them as primitive-Origenian, therefore pre-Lucianic, and 
as the basis on which Lucian worked. 

The Gr. stylism of Lu. in Dan. is that so well known and 
often observed in other bks., and requires no further remark. 
An interesting phenomenon (also noted elsewhere, e.g., Driver, 
Samuel"^, p. H) is the presence of doublets in the text, viz.: at 4^, 
523 (22)^ 72^ gu^ 8", 92", iiio^ ii36^ J j4o^ 12^ Including these doublet 

corrections there may be noted not more than about twenty 
cases where Lu. exhibits variations representing a better trans- 
lation or at least points of interest in interpretation. His actual 
contributions therefore are rather small. In two cases at least 
he follows a tradition which appears in B*, at i^^, 3-^ (g-v.), which 
presuppose original information local in Syria. In some cases 
his text has retained the original, correct form, which has been 
otherwise corrupted, e.^., 11^^, ii'°. We may have to allow 
that he made some contributions, but withal with most con- 
stant dependence upon Or 'gen, whom he knew in practically 
the shape of Or'', Accordingly he represents one fork from that 
master root, as Or*^ represents another, as has been argued 

But another condition in Lu. has long since given rise to ag- 
gravated discussion, the appearance of 'Lucianic rdgs.' in texts 
antedating Lu. These appear in the OLat. par excellence, also 
in primitive Gr. texts of the ist and 2d centuries, perhaps going 
back to 'Ur-Theodotion.' These variations are all slight in 
value, nowhere exhibit Hexaplaric rdgs. or the plusses charac- 
teristic of Origen and Lucian. At times they offer more literal 
translations in word order, particles, etc., than we find in B. 
As has been observed above, §12, c, the explanation must be 
that Lu. was following a form of text which was variant from 
that represented by B. We must put the historical Theodotion 
back into the first third of the 2d cent. a.d. at least; we may 
have to carry the tradition of that text still farther back, and 
this stretch of time would have involved variations in different 
regions. A minute examination reveals the fact that Origen's 
basal text differed from B: Lucian's appears to have differed 

' See §10, 4 (i), and the writer's note in JBL n. 5. This Chigi text is the only 
Lucianic text that has been edited and printed for Dan. The Lucianic doublets 
appear in it asterized; the text has many interesting features. 


Still more. We have then to postulate different types of text, 
as we may surmise, one in Egypt = B, one in Palestine = 
Origen's basis, and one in Syria = Lucian's. The correspon- 
dences with the Western texts, as observed at end of §12, the 
OLat., would then have to be explained by a straight inheritance 
of the West from Antioch, It is a case similar to the ' Western 
Readings' in the N.T.^ 


For critical results obtained from study of §>, the ancient and 
simple Bible text as distinguished from the Hexaplaric, sum- 
mary reference is made to Wyngaarden's Pennsylvania thesis. 
The Syriac Version of the Bk. of Dan., Lpzg., 1923. The earliest 
Syr. comm., Aphraates and Aphrem, offer no essential variations 
and depend upon our ^; s. Wyng., p. 33, cf. Riessler, Dan., 18. 
The Old Syr. Gospels (Euangelion de-Mefarrese) do not depend 
upon it, and are prob. anterior; but it precedes the general pub- 
lication of the Hexaplaric apparatus, of which it shows no 
trace, and may therefore be assigned toward the first half of the 
3d cent. The tr. appears to come from a Christian hand, s. 
Wyng., pp. 30/. 

S* is generally a literal tr. of ^ except in evident cases of 
interpretation or theological modification. There are a few 
cases where it may offer a better text than 1^. In regard to the 
VSS, it is slightly, if at all, dependent upon ®. On the other 
hand, the translator made constant use of (Wyng., pp. ig f.). 
Wyng. discusses, pp. 22 jff., the possible affinities with Origen 
and Lucian (never in cases of Hexaplaric additions), but no 
dependence can be proved, beyond that of identical basal texts. 
There are a few cases of identical interpretation between ^ 
and Lu., but these point only to the root of a common interpre- 
tation in Syria {cf. §15). The correspondences with % are con- 
siderable; many of them are due to the identical Theod. back- 
ground, upon which Jer. depended as did #, others are identities 
of text or of interpretation; e.g., g-*^- ". It is to be observed 

* My conclusions arc the same as those of Burkitt, Rides of Tyconius, pp. cxvi seg., 
cf. his Fragments of . . . Aqiiila, pp. 2(->f.; s. also the writer, op. cit., JBL 1925, 299/. 
As for the alleged possible influence of Lu. upon &, as suspected by Wright and 
Duval, the relation must be chronologically the reverse; see the next §. Parsons' 
remarks on Lu., Pref. to vol. i, c. i, §8, are noteworthy for their good sense. 


that both were composed in the same environment, Christian 
but subject to vital Jewish influences. 

§17. Jerome's version: the vulgate. 

This VS has not been particularly studied by itself in the 
present preparation, its general characteristics being, it is as- 
sumed, well known. Jerome was acquainted with all his prede- 
cessors, at least through the Hexaplaric apparatus, and his 
translation as also his comm. are invaluable as summarizing the 
results of earlier scholarship. His text is that of Hf, varying 
from it, almost entirely, in cases of dependence upon his pred- 
ecessors, in paraphrases, and sometimes prob. through careless- 
ness. It is fatuous to lay any stress upon 13 as evidence where 
it agrees with one or other of the preceding VSS. Its chief in- 
terest is as an interpretation, reflecting by Jer.'s predilection 
the Jewish scholarship of which he availed himself; indeed, there 
occur several cases in which he anticipates the interpretations 
of the mediaeval Jewish comm. Any study of Jewish commen- 
tation upon the Scriptures should certainly include Jerome as 
almost the sole witness for an age otherwise dark, since the 
Jewish interest in Dan. as an object of learned or midrashic com- 
ment appears only in later literature. 

§18. method and use of the textual apparatus. 

The preparation of this apparatus has the object of gaining 
precision of terms and simplification of reference. 

Hf is the Ktib, IH its Massoretic apparatus. The inner vari- 
ants to these traditional data are noted, the rdgs. of the chief 
printed editions of M, being carefully registered, along with im- 
portant MS rdgs. As far as textual criticism is concerned, there 
is no need of registering all the translations of later VSS, Aq, 

No single ms authorities are cited as final proof of their re- 
spective VSS. (^ is not the unique Gr. text alone but can only 
be obtained by composition between that and the Syro-Hexa- 
plar, while the text must then be discounted in respect to its 
contaminations and Hexaplaric additions. Especially is © not 
B, although that codex is by far the best exemplar of the VS, 
and will be cited for where there is no dispute. Similarly there 


is no use in citing Cod. A as a fmal authority for anything; 
it has not that importance even for its own group. The aim has 
been to discover the groups which represent the various versions 
and revisions, and to present the results of critical analysis of 
the witnesses in each group. In general the mss, uncials as well 
as cursives, will be comparatively rarely cited; reference will be 
made to the groups in which they belong, e.g., in the compHcated 
field of the Theodotionic tradition, to (the literary text an- 
tecedent to Origen), Or^, Or*^, Lu., the results being based upon 
careful digestion. Where there is no true variation of testimony, 
will stand for the whole Theod. tradition. 

As for the valuation of the testimony of the VSS, their real 
evidence is not obtained by the counting of noses — a theory 
generally accepted, but not generally practised. In Dan. there 
is such an interlocking of evidence, depending upon CS, §> and 
"B depending upon 0, that their combined evidence may not 
count more than one unit. 

Again it is not the coincidence of testimony that evokes con- 
fidence, rather the disagreements must be appraised. The 
identity of (i> and 0, of and S>, may mean nothing; but the 
disagreements of such pairs are worthy of inspection. And espe- 
cially the principle must be laid down that the older the VS the 
greater its interest and perhaps its authority for the primitive 
text. Accordingly in this Comm. ^'s rdgs. are always respected 
as against 0, even against the writer's prejudice; the combina- 
tion 1^ + (^ is not easily overcome; and similarly the combina- 
tion 1^+0 against the later field. On the other hand, the wit- 
ness oi (& -^ & against ^ is of precarious value, for may be 
dependent upon (B. 

The sub- versions have to be handled with care. They may 
not be treated as though they were prime versions, but only as 
representatives of their groups. So treated they are invaluable, 
but without laying down their genetic history such comparison 
is most fallacious, 



Dr. Pusey, distinguished as scholar and Churchman, opens his 
book on Daniel the Prophet with these words: "The book of 


Daniel is especially fitted to be a battle-ground between faith 
and unbelief. It admits of no half-way measures. It is either 
Divine or an imposture." Dr. Pusey proposes a theological di- 
lemma. But there is involved also a critical dilemma. For the 
student must take position as between a view of the bk. which 
assigns it, along with tradition, to the 6th cent. B.C., as practi- 
cally the composition of the seer whose name it bears; and a 
view which regards it as a product of the Hellenistic age. There 
is a gap of 400 years between the two parties, an extent of time 
so vast that it is impossible for either to understand the other, 
or for either to make impression upon the other's argumentative 
bulwarks. While the majority of philological commentaries and 
standard articles upon the bk. now accept the late date for its 
origin,^ nevertheless this tendency may not arrogate to itself the 
whole of scholarship, as there still remain excellent modern 
scholars who vigorously defend the traditional position.^ On the 
ground of the apparent impossibility of the two parties coming 
to terms or even understanding one another, this Comm. must 
pursue its own line of logical development, meeting respectfully, 
if often too summarily, the opposing views on its way. The 
lines of argumentation have not much changed since d'Envieu 
and Driver; the fresh archaeological data seem to lead to more 
dispute with no greater prospect of composition of the debate. 

a. The appearance of the hook in literature. 

The absence of any possible citation from or allusion to the 
bk. before the middle of the 2d cent. B.C. has been indicated 
in §2. 

b. The philological evidence. 

It has been shown above that the character of the Hob. of 
the bk. points at least to a century after the Exile (§6), that 
the actual variations of the Aramaic indicate a later age than 
that of the papyri, although our bk. traditionally belongs to the 

• For the past generation the writer can name for comm. on the conservative side 
only those by the Roman Catholic scholars d'Envieu and Knabenbauer, and those 
by Fuller, Thompson, and Wright. 

' In addition to the comm. named, there are the collections of studies by Wright 
(in a complementary vol. to his comm.), Wilson, Studies, and Boutflower, along 
with a series of articles by Wilson in the Princeton Theol. Rev.; for earlier works 
those by Deane and Kennedy. For the titles s. Bibliography. 


century before these documents (§7), and that the presence of 
foreign words argues almost indubitably for the age of the Per- 
sian settlement well after the Exile, and very reasonably for the 
Hellenistic age (§8). 

c. The historical objective of the book : the four monarchies. 

The historical objective of the bk., whether it is understood 
as contemporaneous to the writer or as prophetically foreseen, 
is the Hellenistic age. This appears definitely in the climax, the 
final vision, cc. 10-12, in the exact survey of history from the 
end of the Persian empire (after 'the fourth' king 'in Persia') 
down through a clearly limned sketch of Hellenistic history to the 
time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It may be said that the great 
bulk of exegesis admits this; opinions vary as to whether or just 
where the Antichrist appears in the story; e.g., Jerome follows 
history through 11-°, and where others find Antiochus entering 
the stage, he makes a bold leap in finding the Antichrist in the 
personage of vv.^^"-. Most critics allow that Antiochus is the 
character from that point, the proposed Antichrist being then 
often found at the end of the chap. In fact, some of the Fathers 
could pursue the history well into the Maccabasan age. See at 
length the Note at the end of c. 11. 

This chapter is the greatest stumbling-block to the 'tradition- 
alist' interpretation of the bk. On the one side its defenders 
only grudgingly allow the Hellenistic features, accepting them 
as merely prophetic 'examples' out of the future, so Keil. The 
position of Wilson, Studies, 274, is unique, that the whole of 11^ 
"is absolutely within the sphere of ordinary predictive proph- 
ecy, and puts one in mind of the indefiniteness of the verse of 
Balaam: 'There shall come forth a star out of Jacob.' "^ If 
there is one sure and definite bit of secular history in the bk., it 
is this chap., which, intentionally obscure as it is, can neverthe- 
less be interpreted and approved by historical scholarship. It is 
interesting to observe that certain conservative scholars have 
ventured to regard this chap, as practically inauthentic; so 
Zockler, who was inclined to reject it as too utterly alien to 

' Smend, 'tJber jud. Apokalyptik,' ZATW 1885, 222 f., believes that c. 11 is an 
historical document of first-rate importance — a more honorable treatment of it 
than Wilson's ascription of utter vagueness. 


other parts of Holy Writ, cf. the comparative indefiniteness of 
the earHer Visions, while Wright has actually advanced the 
theory that the chapter has been overlaid with Targum (for 
which he most unconservatively cites parallels from the late 
Jewish literature), and confesses that "the closing prophecy of 
Daniel, in its present form, cannot be proved to go back to an 
earlier period than 164 B.C." Wright's theory is a pure assump- 
tion. Nevertheless Boutflower adopts the speculation.^ 

After any possible 'analogy of Scripture,' and indeed any pos- 
sible interpretation of a book regarded as a unit, the atheistic 
and inhuman personage described in ii^^^-, who fully corre- 
sponds to the role of Epiphanes, the tyrannical persecutor of 
the Religion and forerunner of the idea of the Antichrist, must 
be identical with the similar personage described 8^^^-, a king in 
'the latter time of the kingdom' of 'Greece,' as is specified v.^'; 
and again with 'the little horn' of the Fourth Beast of the first 
Vision, 7^f-. In the Vision of c. 9, with the avoidance of personal 
portraiture, the 'prince that shall come,' who 'shall destroy the 
city and the sanctuary,' v.^^, is evidently the same personage. 
That is, all four Visions of the second half of the bk. culminate 
in one and the same execrable tyrant, in one and the same ex- 
pected catastrophe of the Nation and the Holy City. He and 
his doings are the climax of the 'kingdom of Greece.' It is in- 
deed difficult to understand how any exegete can dodge this 
exact specification of the last Monarchy. 

The kingdom of Greece is introduced in c. 11 with 'a mighty 
king,' who 'shall rule with great dominion and do according to 
his will,' upon whose death 'his kingdom shall be broken,' etc., 
\^. ^'^•. This is absolutely parallel to the symbol in c. 8 of the 
Buck with the 'conspicuous horn,' v.^, which horn was broken, 
being replaced by four horns, v. ^, the whole range of symbol- 
ism being historically interpreted in w?'^^-: the Buck is the king 
(collectively) of Greece, the great horn the first king, the four 
horns succeeding the four kingdoms into which his kingdom is 
divided; and so 11^ his kingdom is divided to the four winds of 
heaven. The Buck annihilates the Ram, whose two horns rep- 
resent the kingdoms of Media and Persia. Here without doubt 

^ See Wright, Dan. and his Prophecies, 317 Jf-, Boutflower, pp. 4 ff. The citation 
from Wilson given above is his only reference to c. 11. 


we have Alexander, the conqueror of the traditional Medo-Per- 
sian empire, as it is known to Greek historiography. 

In cc. 2 and 7 we find a parallelism of a system of four king- 
doms, which parallelism is admitted by all. In c. 2 the four are 
symbolized by the successive series of metals composing a com- 
posite Image; in c. 7 by a series of successive monstrous Beasts. 
The first of these kingdoms thus symbolized in parallel is ad- 
mitted by almost all interpreters to be Babylonia, as it is spe- 
cifically incarnated in the person of Nebuchadnezzar, 2" ^^ Now, 
analogy requires the identification of the fourth Beast with its 
successive horns in c. 7 with Greece as specified in c. 8. Accord- 
ing to the equally specific statements at the end of c. 11 and the 
beginning of c. 12 the predecessor of Greece is the kingdom of 
Persia, i.e., the third kingdom. The remaining, second king- 
dom can be nothing else than Media, which according to ancient 
historiography, as still maintained by historians, e.g., Rawlin- 
son, up to our own day, was one of the Great Monarchies of the 
ancient Orient. That Media and Persia are assembled in 8^° as 
the two horns of the Ram is not to be pleaded against this iden- 
tification, if we are justified in seeking the missing second king- 
dom. Media did actually empty into Persia, as Greece did into 
Rome. But the distinction between the two is maintained in 
the clear-cut separation between Darius 'the Mede,' or 'of the 
seed of the Medes,' absolute monarch, dynastically speaking, 
over a Median empire, 6^"-, 9^ and Cyrus 'the king of Persia,' 

Support for this postulate of a Median negemony succeeding 

^ For the history of the interpretation of the Four Monarchies s. Note after c. 2. 
Consult Rawlinson's 'Third Monarchy' for what was earlier known, almost entirely 
from the Gr. historians, concerning the alleged Median empire. In the ancient 
periodic composition of history place had to be found for the Medes, the reputed 
conquerors of Assyria, and so they were given a distinct position in the hierarchical 
succession of 'Great Powers.' The history of 'the Medes' remains most obscure 
still. From the latest datum on the destruction of Nineveh, in Gadd, The Fall of 
Nineveh, 1923, it was the Umman-Manda which took the city. In just what way 
we are to harmonize 'Manda' and 'Madai,' whether as identical or confused in 
tradition, historians have not yet determined; cf. Prasek, Gesch. d. Meder u. Perser, 
I, 128. For a writer of the 6th cent., holding office under Belshazzar, the last Bab. 
scion, and Cyrus, conqueror of Babylon ace. to Biblical, Greek and his own royal 
proclamations, to have interpolated an intervening Median kingdom, were an ab- 
surdity. If he was a writer of much later age, his method is perfectly intelligible; 
he was following the schematism of the Gr. historians, itself derived from Oriental 
tradition, and some such empire did exist, cj. Prasek, pp. 124-169. Thus there falls 


that of Babylon was had in the Bible itself. Several prophetic or- 
acles had announced the coming destruction of Babylon by the 
Medes — doubtless a true reflex of the triumph of the Umman- 
Manda over Nineveh — and this expectation affected the Jewish 
retrospection. Such passages are Is. 13^^, 21^, Jer. 51'^- -"--^ 
(n.b., 'the kings of the Medes'). 

There is one ancient and very respectable reason why the 
Fourth Monarchy has been sought in Rome. With the putting 
off of the fulfilment of the Apocalyptic expectation of the con- 
summation of the Kingdom of God, interpretation simply pro- 
ceeded to keep the prophecy up to date. Accordingly the Jews 
under Rome found that Monarchy in their new mistress, teste 
Josephus; and this ruling Jewish interpretation was naturally 
carried over by the Church with its vivid eschatological hopes. 
Subsequently the Jewish comm. found that Monarchy in Islam, 
and in the same spirit Protestant theologians were content to 
work out the fulfilment of prophecy through the Middle Ages 
down to their own day (the feet and toes of the Image were 
German states and what-not), and the Papacy could be identi- 
fied with the Antichrist.® But the early Christian exegesis fol- 
lowed the Jewish interpretation in finding the desecration of 
the sanctuary, end of c. 9, in the Roman destruction of Jeru- 
salem, an interpretation followed by Jesus himself in expecting 
the future setting up of the ' Abomination of Desolation' ; it was 
only subsequently, with the rise of Christian historical scholar- 
ship that the chronologers came to devote themselves to the 
task of reading the mystery of the 490 years, and to find it cul- 

to the ground such an assertion as is made by Wilson, p. 147: "It will be per- 
fectly evident that all educated men living in and before the second century n.c. 
must have had access to so much information with regard to the number and history 
of the Babylonian and Persian kings, as to render it highly improbable that any 
writer of the second century B.C. could have been as ignorant of the history of Persia 
as certain critics represent the writer of Daniel to have been." If the author of 
Dan. had read the Gr. historians he would have been corroborated in the scheme of 
successive monarchies he here presents — which shows that his lack of historical 
knowledge does not prove him to have been an unlearned and foolish writer. For the 
still obscure subject of the Median kingdom, or rather kingdoms, s. Justi in Geiger 
and Kuhn's Grundriss d. iran. Philologie, 2, 406-413; Winckler, KAT 104/.; and 
the brief Outline of Pers. History Based on the Cuneiform Inscriptions, 1922, by Ahl. 
Supplementarily there is to be added the valuable discussion by Forrer, ZDMG 76 
(1922), 247, ace. to which Manda = Madai can be traced back in Akk. and Hit- 
tite documents to the reign of Naram-Sin. 

• This latter identification still figures in Boutflower's presentation of 'The Roman 
Scheme,' p. 14, where the Little Horn = the temporal power of the Papacy ! 


minating somewhere in the history of the first-century Chris- 
tian Church. On the history of this interpretation s. the Note 
at end of c. 9 and also that after c. 2. It is a vast mistake that 
has been perpetrated, especially by Protestant theologians in 
their disregard of the history of exegesis, to hold that the iden- 
tification of the lower term of the 490 years with the epoch of 
Jesus Christ has always been the 'Christian' exegesis. This is 
false to the fact of the great variety of Christian interpretation. 

d. Darius the Mede. 

How then can we identify Darius the Mede? Such is his 
designation, and he was 62 years old, according to 6i<2). 9^ 
makes him 'son of Xerxes, of the seed of the Medes,' who suc- 
ceeded as king over the kingdom of the Chaldaeans.'' In the 
Bible we learn of four Persian kings: Cyrus, e.g., Ezr. i; Ar- 
taxerxes, 4^; Darius 4^ 5^"^-, probably Darius the Persian, Neh. 
12^^ — so the actual order in Ezr.-Neh.; and Xerxes, Est. i, etc. 
Likewise according to Dan ii^ there were four Pers. kings, cj. 
the 'four heads' of the symbolic beast 7^. This abbreviation of 
the length of the Persian empire has its counterpart in the later 
Jewish reckoning of but 34 years to the Pers. regime; s. Note 
on the Interpretation of the 70 Weeks, end of c. 9, suh (3). Our 
Darius the Mede is evidently distinguished from Darius the 
Persian. Boutflower, p. 143, notes six identifications that have 
been proposed for the Mede, two of them of recent origin. One 
of the elder identifications (s. Dr., p. liii) is Astyages, the Median 
king conquered by Cyrus, whom the latter is gratuitously sup- 
posed to have installed as viceroy in Babylon; another Cyaxares 
(II), who, according to Xenophon's Cyropaedia, viii, 5, 8, mar- 
ried his daughter to Cyrus; but according to i, 2, i, Cyrus mar- 
ried a daughter of Astyages. We see how little confidence we 
can place upon Xenophon's romance. This lightness of later 
tradition is carried on by Josephus, who states, A J x, 11, 4, 
that this Darius "with his kinsman Cyrus put an end to the 
dominion of Babylon; he was the son of Astyages (ace. to Dan., 
of Xerxes !), and had another name among the Greeks." 

'There is nothing cryptic in the expressions translated 'received the kingdom,' 
6', and 'was made king,' g', v. ad locc; this against those wlio hold to indications that 
Darius was only a viceroy. 


One recent identification is that with Cambyses, on the ground 
that the latter appears to have enjoyed the title of king from the 
beginning of Cyrus' reign; this was proposed by Winckler, KAT 
287, and has been warmly adopted by Boutfiower, p. 145. But 
no explanation of the equation 'Darius the Mede — Cambyses 
the Persian' is offered, and Boutfiower appeals in vain (pp. 153^.) 
to a hypothesis that the Pers. names were epithetical, titular. 

The more popular recent identification is that with Gubaru, 
Cyrus' lieutenant, who made the actual entry into Babylon in 
the name of his master, and subsequently was governor of that 
province according to the Nabonidus-Cyrus Chronicle. Other 
texts have since come to light which indicate that Gubaru was 
a high officer under Neb., probably toward the end of his reign; 
that under Cambyses he was governor both of Babylon and 
Abar-Nahara ('Across-Euphrates'). He appears also in the 
Behistun Inscription as one of Darius I's field-marshals. Herod- 
otus makes frequent reference to him in the history of Darius, 
and Xenophon gives extensive notices of him in the Cyropaedia 
(as Gobryas). This material has now been assembled and am- 
ply discussed by W. Schwenzner, who presents a plausible and 
most romantic reconstruction of the history of this Persian mag- 
nate, who probably as a mercenary enjoyed high rank under 
Neb., who appears to have made defection from Nabonidus (of 
the anti-Nebuchadnezzar party) and gone over to Cyrus, then 
received his high commands in the new empire, and subsequently 
became one of Darius' doughty lieutenants in the estabUsh- 
ment of his kingdom.* 

But ' Darius = Gubaru,' as far as names go, is still as fallacious 
an equation as is ' Darius — Cambyses' ; such attempts are no bet- 

' W. Schwenzner, 'Gobryas,' Klio, 18 (1922), 41-58, 226-252. The texts in their 
chronological order appear: in Scheil, Rev. d'ass. ii (1914), 1(35 Jf-, a text indicating 
that Gubaru held high rank under Neb. (so Scheil and Schwenzner, but Clay, JAOS 
41, 466 argues that the date is under Cyrus); in the Nabonidus-Cyrus Chronicle (for 
literature s. note 12 below), ace. to which 'Gubaru, governor of Gutium, and the 
soldiers of Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle,' and after Cyrus' entry into the 
city and proclamation of peace 'he appointed Gubaru his satrap and prefects also 
in Babylon'; in Nies and Keiser, Bah. Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies, 
pt. 2, 1918, nos. 69 and 114, of Cambyses' accession year, in both of which trans- 
gression against the terms of the documents involves 'sin against Gubaru, governor 
{bU pihati) of Babylon and of Abar-Nahara {cbir nari)'; in Clay (not the editor, Hil- 
precht), BE viii, i, no. 80, of Cambyses' ist year, recording a 'canal of Gubaru'; in 
Strassmaier, Inschriftcn v. Cambyses, no. g6, relating to his private affairs, barns, 


ter than those of ^ and Josephus to rectify the order of Pers. 
kings in the later bks. of the O.T. The Behistun Inscr. knows 
Gubaru as a Persian, against Wilson's vain attempts to prove 
the possibiUty of his being a Mede. Further, the more we know 
of Gobryas the less can we assign him royal rank. It is well- 
nigh impossible that a highest noble could have been given the 
title even popularly, still less by a member of the Pers. court, as 
the seer Daniel is alleged to have been. Such a title could have 
been nothing less than high treason, involving the subject as 
well as the writer. But the Biblical Darius the Mede acts as 
omnipotent autocrat over a vast empire of 120 satrapies,^ and 
the ne plus ultra of royal autocracy appears in the edict he signs 
that none should worship any god or man but himseK. Neither 
Gobryas nor Cambyses, in his father's lifetime, could have per- 
petrated such an absurdity. For explanation of the story we 
can only make surmises. For local reasons not known to us the 
great Darius I, who made Cyrus' domain into an organized 
empire, who had to punish Babylon for its rebelliousness in his 
early days, may have passed as a Mede, and there being no 
place for him in the line of the four Pers. kings known to the 
Bible, may have been made the representative of the supposi- 
titious Median kingdom and so been placed before Cyrus. In 
him the captures of Babylon by Gobryas and Darius I may have 
been compounded, and in so far we may have a residuum of 
tradition. ^° 

etc.; in Pinches, PSBA 38 (1916), 29/., of Cambyses' 4th year, similar to the Nies 
texts (the title of governorship of Abar-Nahara is omitted). In the Behistun Inscr. 
there is ref. to Gubaru-Gaubaruua, in §68 in trilingual form, in §71 in OPers. alone, 
Gubaru being termed 'son of Mardonia, a Persian,' and appearing as one of Darius' 
field-marshals (s. Weissbach, 'Die Keilinschriften d. Achameniden,' in Vorderas. 
Bihliothek) . Gobryas appears as a leading personage in Herodotus for the events in 
Darius I's reign (iii, 70, etc.), while he figures largely in Xenophon's Cyrus Romance, 
the Cyropaedia. Below in sub-section (e) will be given a summary of the story told 
in viii, 5, of his seizure of the palace in Balsylon and the killing of the Bab. king; 
most of the anecdotes about Gobryas concern his relations with Darius. The his- 
torical value of these Gr. traditions is fully discussed by Schwenzner. See also for 
an earlier discussion C. F. Lehmann-Haupt, 'Gobryas u. Belsazar bei Xenophon,' 
Klio, 1902, 341-5. 

• Technically a woful exaggeration, excusable only from the later degenerated 
use of 'satrap'; s. at 3^ 

'» Cf. Behrmann, p. xix. Dr., p. liv, Cornill, Tnl., 258, against which line of argument 
cf. Wilson, cc. 10-12. Cambyses' acts of sacrilege in Egypt may have given rise to 
this fable of royal claim of deity, yet Darius appears in the story as a friendly char- 
acter. But the theme belonged to the common satire of Jewish story; ace. to Judith 
3' Neb. gave an edict that he alone should be worshipped. 



e. Belshazzar. 

The existence of a Belshazzar at the end of the Chaldaean 
dynasty was strikingly demonstrated by the discovery of his 
name on the Nabonidus Cylinder, in which he appears as Na- 
bonidus' son." Otherwise Belsh. had entirely disappeared from 
history except for the reff. in Dan. and the dependent ref. in 
Bar. i", where the Jews are bidden to 'pray for the life of 
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and for the life of Baltasar 
his son,' which appears at first sight to be an echo of Dan. A 
large number of cuneiform references have since been discov- 
ered. The following treatment concerns itself only with the 
main facts and their interpretation. ^^ 

In the cuneiform texts Belsh. is called either by his name or, 
as in the Nabonidus-Cyrus Chronicle simply 'son of the king,' 
i.e., anglice, 'crown prince.' In the Chronicle for years 7, 9, 10, 
II of Nabonidus' reign it is recorded that "the king was in 
Teima; the son of the king, the princes and his (or, the) army 
were in the land of Akkad." In the texts hitherto known Belsh. 
is never given the title of king, and this has been ground for 
argument against one detail of our story which represents Belsh. 
as absolute king. But Sidney Smith's presentation of a new text 
(s. end of Note 12) shows that royal dignity was actually con- 

" Cf. for the first discoveries COT 2, 130. 

" The writer is deeply indebted to Prof. R. P. Dougherty, late of Goucher College, 
now of Yale, for his generosity in affording him the full use of his materials for a 
forthcoming volume entitled Nabonidus and Belshazzar, in the Yale Oriental Series. 
Only as this volume was being finally prepared for the press did the ms copy of Dr. 
Dougherty's volume come to hand. The data here presented, as, indeed, all the 
earlier studies, will be much antiquated by Dr. Dougherty's exhaustive volume. 
But it seems wise to the writer to leave his study in its present state with the pres- 
entation of his conclusions as already reached, while referring the reader to that 
forthcoming volume. 

For the literature used here I note the following: Rogers, Cuneiform Inscr. and the 
O.T., 37& ff., and KAT vol. 3, give the Nabonidus Cylinder already mentioned, as 
also the Cyrus Cylinder celebrating his conquest of Babylon; these also appear in 
Barton, Archceology and the Bible, c. 20, along with the Nabonidus-Cyrus Chrosicle, 
first published by Pinches, PSBA 1882, 167^. Recently published refl. to Belsh. 
are those of Pinches, PSBA 1916, 2t ff.; Clay, Miscell. Inscr. in the Yale Bab. Collec- 
tion, 1915, no. 39; Dougherty, Records from Erech, Time of Nabonidus (Yale Or. 
Series), 1920, no. 134, and Archives from Erech, Time of Nebuch. and Nab. (Goucher 
College), 1923, no. 294. For successive presentations of the material s. Pinches, 
O.T. in the Light of the Hist. Records of Ass. and Bab.^, 1903, c. 12; Wright, c. 4; Wil- 
son, c. 6; Boutflower, c. 11. Finally, a new text of Nab. describing his conquest of 
Arabian Teima has been published by Sidney Smith, Bab. Hist. Texts, 1924, 84 if. 


ferred upon Belsh. This text, of the third full year of Nabonidus, 
detaiUng that king's victorious campaign against Arabian Teima 
(as this place has elsewhere been identified by Dougherty), re- 
cords: "He intrusted a camp to his eldest, his first-born son; 
the troops of the land he sent with him. He freed his hand; he 
intrusted the kingship {larnltam) to him." That is, in the early 
part of Nabonidus' reign, in his third year, his son was invested 
with royal dignity, which, in view of the active position he held 
throughout the subsequent years, must have continued through- 
out his life. That is, the Bible story is correct as to the rank of 
kingship given to Belsh. Now in several texts the prince's name 
is coupled with his father's in the latter's prayers and in the 
omens interpreted for him; and in Pinches' text and two texts 
in the Yale Museum his name is associated with his father's in 
an oath; on which Dougherty remarks: "There is no other in- 
stance in available documents of an oath being sworn in the 
name of the son of the king." The induction therefore that had 
been made from earlier data by Pinches, Dougherty, and others, 
is now brilliantly corroborated; as in a previous statement of 
the latter scholar: "It appears that he was invested with a de- 
gree of royal authority, not only at the close of the reign of his 
father, but throughout large part, if not the whole, of the reign 
of Nabonidus." 

For the capture of Babylon, the fall of Nabonidus and the 
disappearance of Belsh. from history, the Nabonidus-Cyrus 
Chronicle is our immediate authority. The following transla- 
tion is taken from Dougherty: "In the month Tishri,i2a when 
Cyrus fought at Opis on the Tigris river against the troops of 
Akkad, he destroyed the people with burning; he put the people 
to death. On the 14th day Sippar was captured without fight- 
ing. Nabonidus fled. On the i6th day Ugbaru the governor of 
Gutium, and the troops of Cyrus entered Babylon without fight- 
ing. Afterward, when Nabonidus returned, he was taken cap- 
tive in Babylon. Until the end of the month the arms of Gutium 
surrounded the gates of the temple Esagila. No one's weapon 
was placed in Esagila or the sanctuaries, and no appointed time 
was disregarded. In the month Marchesvan, the 3d day, Cyrus 

"» E. Meyer, ZATW i8q8, zzq JI-, corrected 'Tammuz' to 'Tishri,' as the se- 
quence of events demands; Dougherty reads 'Tishri' without comment. 


entered Babylon. Harine (?) were carried before him. Pros- 
perity was established in the city; Cyrus decreed prosperity for 
all in Babylon. Gobryas, his governor, placed governors in 
charge of Babylon. From Kislev to Adar the gods of Akkad, 
whom Nabonidus had brought up to Babylon, they returned to 
their cities." There follow, as Dougherty notes, the death of 
a prominent personage and a period of mourning, in the follow- 
ing fragmentary lines: ''In the month Marchesvan, on the night 
of the nth, Ugbaru . . . In the month (?) the . . . of the king 
died. From the 28th day of Adar to the third day of Nisan 
there was weeping in the land of Akkad. . . . All the people 
prostrated their heads." Who this personage was is quite 
doubtful ; most scholars, while recognizing the uncertainty, have 
filled the lacuna with 'the son [of the king],' i.e., Belsh.; so, e.g., 
King, Barton, Clay, Boutflower (p. 129), and Dougherty earlier; 
but the latter now does not venture to fill the gap. He writes 
later on: "Accurate interpretation ... is impossible owing to 
the illegible condition of the text. However, there is strong 
probability that Belsh. was slain in connection with the fall of 
Babylon, as indicated in the fifth chapter of Daniel and inti- 
mated by the record of Xenophon." On this point the writer 
admires Dougherty's candid scepticism, for he himself must 
enter a demurrer against the theory that the conqueror's own 
record could have so distinguished the death of a prince who 
was, when free and alive, a hopeless rebel. 

How and where Belsh. came to his end we do not learn from 
the Akk. documents. But some Gr. data, which have often been 
alleged as history, must be considered. Herodotus, i, 191, de- 
scribes at length Cyrus' capture of Babylon. According to his 
story the city had been stoutly fortified and provisioned against 
Cyrus' attack. But the latter diverted the Euphrates into a 
great basin, which had been made by Neb.'s queen Nitocris 
when she was building the water-walls of the city; and by this 
dry channel he entered the city unawares (by night ? — although 
this is not stated), "as they were engaged in a festival, dancing 
and revelling until they learned of the capture but too surely." 
The story is paralleled by a much longer narrative in Xenophon's 
Cyropaedia, vii, 5 (noticed above under the title 'Darius the 
Mede'). Cyrus formed the plan of draining off the river into a 
trench which he had dug; he drained off the waters on a night 


when "he heard that there was a festival in Babylon, in which 
all the Babylonians drank and revelled the whole night." The 
attacking party was headed by Cyrus, with his officers Gadatas 
and Gobryas acting as guides. They entered the city, taking 
advantage of the revelry in the streets, and easily reached the 
palace. They entered and found the king standing with his 
sword drawn; he was made away with by Gadatas and Gobryas 
and their party, and then ensued a massacre of those found in 
the streets. Soon after Cyrus held a public reception and entered 
into the palace. 

Certain parallels with the story in Dan. 5 are obvious and 
interesting, and the reconstruction often made is that this un- 
named king of the Cyropaedia is Belshazzar, that he was func- 
tioning as king, even without the actual name, and that Gobryas 
who killed him is Darius the Mede, the Gubaru of the Bab. 

On these stories it is to be remarked that historians now uni- 
versally reject the tradition of a forcible capture of Babylon in 
view of the plain record of the Nabonidus-Cyrus Chronicle that 
Cyrus' troops under Gubaru peacefully occupied the city and 
captured Nabonidus in it, he himself celebrating his triumph a 
little later. Furthermore we have the account of Berossus pre- 
served by Josephus, C. Apionem, i, 20, which varies somewhat 
from the official records but gives no room for a 'king Belshaz- 
zar.' We read: "When Nabonnedus perceived that Cyrus was 
coming to attack him, he met him with his forces, and, joining 
battle with him, was beaten and fled away with a few of his 
troops, and was shut up within the city Borsippa. Hereupon 
Cyrus took Babylon and gave order that the outer walls of the 
city should be demolished, because the city had proved very 
troublesome to him, and cost him great pains to take it. He 
then marched away to Borsippa to besiege Nabonnedus; but as 
Nabonnedus did not sustain the siege, but delivered himself 
into his hands, he was at first kindly treated by Cyrus, who 
gave him Carmania as a place for him to inhabit and sent him 
out of Babylonia." It is to be noticed that there are variations 
from the Chronicle, especially in regard to the resistance put 
up by Nabonidus and the difficulty of taking the city promptly. 
It must be borne in mind that Berossus himself is a witness 240 
years after the events he narrates, although withal a much 


more reliable authority than the earlier Herodotus and Xeno- 

There remains, however, but only after Xenophon's Romance, 
the death of an unnamed king of Babylon in his palace on a night 
of revelry at the hands of two Persian officers, one of them 
Gobryas, doubtless a reminiscence of the historical Gubaru. 
That the unfortunate Belsh., abandoned by his father in his 
chivalrous resistance to the conqueror, should have been popu- 
larly called king by his faithful subjects is not impossible, and, 
as Lehmann-Haupt remarks, in note 8, he would have passed 
in native tradition as the last Bab. king. Nor, it must be al- 
lowed, would the Chronicle, edited by the new administration, 
have granted him that title even if he had actually assumed it, 
as Cyrus regarded himself as the legitimate successor of Na- 
bonidus.^* But whether a Jewish writer, contemporaneous with 
the conqueror and one of his court, would have desired or dared 
to use the title * king ' of the prince Belshazzar, whom the Pers. 
dynasty could only have regarded as a rebellious upstart, is a 
matter for serious deliberation for those who must pass upon 
the historicity of the Biblical story. 

Yet other data are given in Dan. 5 which have a bearing upon 
our investigation. The 'Queen,' recognized by all to be the 
queen-mother, enters the banquet-hall to bid her son call in the 
sage Daniel, who 'in the days of king Neb. thy father had been 
made by him master-magician.' What is to be said about this 
asserted paternity of Nebuchadnezzar? And can we identify 
the lady? 

In the foundation cylinder of Nabonidus, already cited and 
existing in duplicate {KB 3, 96) Belsh. is spoken of as 'the first 
son proceeding from my heart' {libbia). Wilson, pp. 117-122, 
considers at length ' the possibility of a man having two fathers.' 
After an excursus on the vague use of 'son' in Oriental lan- 
guages, he presents eight different ways in which Belsh. may 
have been called 'son' of Neb.^* E.g., he may have been Neb.'s 

" A longer account by Berossus of the Chaldsean empire has been preserved in 

the Armenian Chronicle of Eusebius, first published by Mai; s. C. Miiller, Fragm. 

hist, grace, 2, 504. Berossus' narratives appear to be generally ignored by the 

apologists for c. 5. 

" See the arguments by Wilson, c. 5, 'The Use of the Word "King."' 

" He gives as an instance of the ideal or spiritual use of 'offspring of my heart' 

the application of that term to Nabonidus by the high priest of Harran. 


own son adopted by Nabonidus, in which case the family his- 
tory in Dan. is literally exact; or he may have been Nab.'s son, 
but a grandson of Neb. through a possible marriage of Nab. 
with a daughter of Neb. ; etc., etc. Boutflower advances and pre- 
fers yet another possibility, pp. 115 ff. Recognizing that Belsh. 
must have been born before his father's accession to the throne, 
and doubtless the latter as a private citizen not being eligible 
to a queen-mother's hand, he argues that Nab. had married the 
queen of Neb., the famous Nitocris of Herodotus, after his ac- 
cession, and so in this way by a complicated legal casuistry had 
made his own son legal son of Neb.^° There are indeed all sorts 
of possibilities and combinations, but in lack of evidence it is 
simplest to accept the family relationship at its face value, and 
this would agree with Herodotus' foreshortened view of the 
Chaldaean dynasty (i, 188); he makes Labynetos (II = Nabo- 
nidus) the son of Labynetos (I = Nebuchadnezzar) by Nitocris. 
And so, more correctly as to the names, Abydenus, cited by 
Eus., Praep., xi, 41, 6, knows only two kings, Neb. and Labyne- 
tos. And this is equally the understanding of Bar. i, which 
presents Neb. and his son Belsh. in the fifth year after the de- 
struction of the city. The historical bks. of the O.T. know only 
of Neb. and his son Evil-Merodach ; but between the latter and 
Nabonidus history now certainly inserts Neriglissar and his son 
Labashi-Marduk after Berossus, Jos., C. A p., i, 20. 

Yet another item in c. 5 involves discussion. Whosoever 
should read the mystic inscription was to be called 'third' in 
the kingdom. The elder popular view was that the second after 
the king was the queen-mother; and to this view the writer 
would subscribe in case ' the Third ' is not in itself a proper title, 
lilce Heb. salts ; s. at 5^ But the discovery of Belshazzar's name 
as 'king's son,' and coregent with his father has quite naturally 
induced the supposition that the triple hierarchy should begin 
with Nabonidus; so Wright, p. 133, Boutflower, p. 119, and such 
is Dougherty's conclusion. We should then have to think of a 
traditional reminiscence of Nabonidus as in the background of 

" Wright also assumes identification with Nitocris. Nab. ascended the throne 17 
years after Neb.'s death, but Boutflower does not observe that the lady in question 
was probably rather advanced in years to enter a new harem. As I understand 
Dougherty's position, the queen-mother is the daughter of Neb. and wife of Na- 
bonidus and so mother of Belsh. Why, however, he gives her the name Nitocris, 
which is that of the consort of Neb., i.e., Labynetos I, ace. to Her., I do not see. 


Belsh.'s 'reign.' But for the story itself, considered as a dra- 
matic unity, only the queen-mother can be included. When a 
king is pictured in the plenitude of royal estate, as is Belshazzar, 
a super-king cannot easily be surmised. 

To sum up, the story of Belshazzar is not imaginary fiction, 
but possesses true historical traditions, as do Herodotus and 
Xenophon, and is superior to the two Greeks in knowing the 
name of the last Bab. prince. The parallelism demands — and 
Dan. is closer to Xenophon than to Herodotus — that we recog- 
nize in all three traditional developments of the popular memory 
of the fall of Babylon. 

/. The third year of Jehoiakim; the Chaldceans ; etc. 

Other points, almost innumerable, in the alleged history of 
Daniel, are impugned by the critics; and they are defended with 
equal tenacity by the apologists. The minor points should be 
approached from the judgment obtained for the main historical 
considerations, the questions of Darius the Mede, Belshazzar, 
the Fourth Monarchy. If the decisions fall out in favor of these 
points as historical, it remains for the historian but to discount 
minor difficulties and inaccuracies. The argument depends upon 
the accumulation of evidence pro or con}'^ 

The datum at the opening of the bk. that there was a captiv- 
ity of Jehoiakim and his people in the 3d year of his reign, a year 
before Neb.'s defeat of Necho at Karkemish (Jer. 46^), is inex- 
plicable from anything we know of Oriental history at that time 
or from inner-Biblical data, except a statement in 2 Ch. 36^- '' 
that Neb. came against Jeh., bound him in fetters to carry him 
to Babylon, and carried off the vessels of the temple. Nothing 
is known of this captivity in the parallel in 2 Ki. 24. Our author 
has preferred Ch. to Ki., and appears to have combined the 
datum of Ch. with that of 2 Ki. 24^ that Jehoiakim served Neb. 
three years, then rebelled, and Neb. sent against him marauding 

" It is a vast pity that apologists have gone so far as they have in attempting to 
maintain every iota of statement in the bk. — this in their zeal to support not so 
much its historical accuracy as its divine infallibility. In consequence they demand 
an extreme of respect for Dan. which is not required by conservative critics for the 
historical bks. of the O.T. or even for the Gospels, in which the play of human lim- 
itation and inexactness is generally allowed. Equally some radical critics have 
overreached themselves in finding 'absurdities' throughout the bk. 


bands, so obtaining the third year by a very daring deduction 
— very likely an interpretation that had already been made be- 
fore the composition of the bk.^^ 

There is internal trouble with the date of year 2 of Neb. at 2^ 
because of the prima facie disagreement with the three years' 
discipline required of the youths i^; s. Comm. at 2^. For Dan.'s 
continuing unto year i of Cyrus, i^^, v. ad loc. The remaining 
regnal years: 7^ Belsh. year i; 8^ do. year 3; 9^ Darius year i; 
10^ Cyrus year 3, appear to be arbitrary, or was 3 years the 
traditional term for the reigns of Belsh. and Cyrus? Darius' 
age of 62 years, 6^ (5^0 must depend upon some kind of histori- 
cal tradition. ^^ 

Perhaps transcending the obvious historical difficulties re- 
corded above is the naive use of ' Kasdim-Chaldaeans ' as a class 
of magicians: see Comm. at 2^, Dr., p. xlix seq. Schrader, for the 
first generation of Assyriologists, says (COT 2, 125): "This is in 
itself a clear indication of the post-exilic date of the bk."; and 
equally the conservative Sayce, Monuments, 535: "In the eyes 
of the Assyriologist the use of the word Kasdim . . , would 
alone be sufficient to indicate the date of the work with unerring 
certainty." It is an anachronism similar to an identification of 
the historical Egyptians with the Gypsies and their magic prac- 
tices. ^° 

In regard to the whole background of classes of soothsayers, 
omen-diviners, etc., among whom the Chaldaeans are rated as a 
distinct class (e.g., 4'"^>), F. Lenormant, the first student of the 
Bab. omen texts and magic, has been often cited by apologists 
for the early origin of Dan. in his appeal to the Bab. coloring of 

" See Comm. at i'. This is really a case of Scripture vs. Scripture, despite Wilson's 
arguments, cc. 3. 4. 

" <& followed by texts assigns year 18 of Neb. for the story of the Three Con- 
fessors, 3', i.e., the date of the destruction of Jerusalem; this is repeated in <8 3" 

^'' Wilson's discussion of this technical term, c. 18, has value for its chain of testi- 
monies for this particular professional sense among the Greeks from Herodotus 
down, the Greeks in general coming to confine it at last to that sense; withal the 
historical mng. survived among them down to Strabo, just as this sense appears in 
'Belshazzar the Chaldsan king,' 6'". The first evidence for the latter sense, outside 
of the disputed bk. of Dan., is in Herodotus, who wrote some 150 years after the 
opening dates of Dan.; which would seem to argue for the lateness of the bk.'s use 
of the word in that sense. The new slant to the word is easily explained as arising 
after the intrusion of the new Pers. empire and religion, when 'Chaldxan' became 
a religious designation just as 'Jew' became. 


the bk. with its description of the soothsayers, their classes and 
their methods, as a proof of its origin in the Bab. empire. His 
latest statement, as known to the writer, is as follows :2i "The 
further we advance in the knowledge of the Cuneiform texts, the 
greater does the necessity appear of reversing the condemnation 
much too prematurely pronounced by the German exegetical 
school against the date of the writings of the fourth of the 
greater prophets. The language of the book of Daniel, inter- 
spersed as it is in various places with Greek words, proves with- 
out doubt that the definitive translation (Fr. 'redaction'), as we 
possess it, is posterior to the time of Alexander, but the founda- 
tion of the work dates much further back; it is tinged with a 
very decided Bab. tint, and certain features of the life at the 
court of Neb. are there pictured with a truth and exactitude, to 
which a writer a few centuries later could hardly have attained." 
But passing by some of his critical admissions, we note that 
Lenormant was not aware of a fact which has since his day been 
well established, although many still ignore it: the survival of 
the Bab. religious practices long after the fall of the empire. At 
the beginning of the Hellenistic period Bab. astronomy was at 
its acme in the person of Berossus, the Bab. priest and historian 
who migrated to Cos and founded a school there. And the reli- 
gious literature continued far later; the youngest specimen 
known to the writer is a hymn written in 80 B.C., published by 
Reisner, Sumerische Hyrnnen, 1896, no. 49, cj. p. xiv. 

Now we actually know far more of the religion of the New 
Babylonian empire than we do of its history. We are wofuUy 
ill informed of the data of the reign of that admirable monarch 
Nebuchadnezzar. But his many inscriptions, like those of Na- 
bonidus, are almost entirely religious. And on this score the 
religious actions and attitudes ascribed to Neb. and Darius the 
Mede are incomprehensible. For each of these kings a story is 
told (cc. 3. 6) of an attempt to foist a single and strange object 
of worship upon the realm, in the one case a golden Image, ^^ in 
the other the king's person to the exclusion of any god. No 

'' See his Chaldcean Magic, Eng. tr. of his La magic chez les Chaldeens, 1874, with- 
out date but with preface dated 1877, and so this authorized and improved ed. is 
subsequent also to the author's La divination et la science des presages, 1875. The 
citation above is found p. 14 of the Eng. tr. 

" For this legend there may be a basis in Berossus' account of Ochus being the 
first to erect images; s. Comm. at c. 3. 


trace of any such legislation can be found in antiquity, not even 
in the consummate religious tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes. 
And, on the other hand, the extreme terms of the royal confes- 
sions, 3^*1-^^ (4^"^), 431-34(34-37)^ a^jj(j especially of the legal decree 
of Darius, 6^^-29 (2 b-2s) ^ are, to say the least, hardly probable, al- 
though they are not beyond the scope of the story-teller. The 
subtle inference that Neb. became a worshipper of the one God 
is not borne out by any known facts or any possible hypothesis 
based on facts. It is erroneous, as many have done, to argue 
that the portraiture of these two kings was modelled after the 
arch-tyrant Antiochus. Neb. and Darius are friendly, human 
natures; the latter immediately regrets the impulsive action into 
which he has been inveigled by Dan.'s enemies; the former swells 
with pride, is punished, but is given opportunity of repentance 
and is rewarded. On the whole they are models of what kings, 
when corrected, may become. The milieu of the story is rather 
that of an earlier age than the Maccabaean, when there were al- 
ready many ill-wishers of the Jews, much popular anti-Semitism, 
like that expressed in Judith. ^^ 

In general it must be said that the atmosphere of the Pagan 
world and its contrast with Judaism are capitally presented. 
There is but one serious fault, when in his zeal over his hero's 
triumph the writer makes Dan. actual ' master-magician ' of the 
royal court, 4®'^\ Were the story true, Dan.'s position as a 
pious Jew would have been intolerable and impossible for all 
parties. If it be a romance the naive /aM.r pas is quite excusable. 

The upshot of this survey of the facts is that when the alleged 
historical data are examined, the principal stumbling-blocks can 
only be explained by ingenious combinations of infinite possibili- 
ties and alternatives which daze rather than satisfy the mind. 
That a series of hypothetical events may, one by one, have hap- 
pened, no historian can deny; on the other hand, in the large 
paths of history he cannot become a detective, putting together 
all the possibilities to make a hypothetical case. He must stand 
by the ascertained facts, allowing them to be modified only by 
sure or probable data. 

But if the bk. be regarded as a work of religious romance, it 

" The story of Judith presents Neb. in a very different light, as a man who would 
be a god, 3'. None of the usual apologists would allow the credibility of this, and 
yet, as has been recognized, Judith is not devoid of historical reminiscences. 


becomes entirely intelligible. It reflects well the forces of the 
Babylonian-Persian-Greek civilization, in which there was a con- 
tinuity of Orientalism slightly altered by the successive political 
phases. There is the inheritance of the age-old Bab. religion, the 
stage-setting of the barbarous Persian Empire, all of which rather 
swallowed up Hellenism than was affected by it. It contains 
historical legend, which may possibly be woven in with other 
late traditions to add to our knowledge. But its essential histori- 
cal value lies in its reflection of the conditions of that Oriental 
complex of life on which we are too iU informed. This dominant 
interest of the bk. has been too much overlooked by both radical 
critic and apologist in their zeal for attack or defence, and the 
religious and literary merits of the bk. have accordingly suffered. 
What is here said refers almost entirely to cc. i-6; the milieu of 
cc. 7-12 is quite different, s. §21. 

g. The book as an apocryphon. 

The bk. as a unit is an apocryphon, that is, a volume of alleged 
antiquity that had been purposely ' hidden away ' until the emer- 
gency arrived for its publication.^* The injunction for such dis- 
posal of our bk. is given at the end of the final vision, 12*:' Thou, 
Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book even to the time of 
the end [= 'Endzeit'].' It is the first specimen of technical 
apocrypha that we possess in Jewish literature, and the forerun- 
ner of a very extensive series of similar but far more elaborate 
productions of the 2d cent. B.C. and after, all the apocalypses 
being characterized by this fiction, the Christian Apocalypse of 
John being the exception." In most cases the fiction is implied, 

^ This is the most plausible explanation for the primary mng. of the many-sided 
word; see, e.g., Porter, 'Apocrypha,' DB p. 112, Charles, Int. to his Apoc. Schiirer 
takes opposite ground in favor of relating it to the Jewish term geniz, used of bks. 
withdrawn from public use and stored away in the Geniza ; s. his art. 'Apokrypha,' 
7?£, and his review, TLZ 1900, 202, of Kautzsch, Apok. u. Pseudepig., who contra- 
dicts this etymology. But the preference for the view here accepted is supported by 
2 Esd. 12", where the apocryphal bks. are to be put away 'in loco abscondito,' which 
Hilgenfeld properly reverts into ev xoxw dxoxputpw, and also by the title of the papy- 
rus text of the Eighth Book of Moses published by Dieterich, Abra.xas, i6g, Mwu- 
altos lepa pt'flXos dz6x,pU90c; ExtxaXoujjLsvT) dySoT) y] dyfsr. 

"If with some (s. Schiirer, GJV 3, 273) we are to place the Dream Visions of 
Enoch, cc. 83-90, before the death of Judas Mace. (ace. to Charles, Bk. of Enoch, 180, 
'possibly before his purification of the temple'), the bk. of Dan. may be but a speci- 
men of an already established type of literature. 


e.g., the bk. of Enoch, the antediluvian sage, or Jubilees, the 
Kabbala of Moses that had been esoterically handed down. In 
2 Esd. appears the fullest expression of the fiction, 12": 'Write 
all these things that thou hast seen in a book and put them in 
a secret place'; and still more specifically in c. 14, where Esdras 
is commissioned to write the bks. vouchsafed him, vv.*^- *^: 'The 
24 Books [i.e., the Heb. Canon] that thou hast written publish, 
that the worthy and unworthy may read. But the seventy last 
thou shalt keep to deliver to the wise among thy people. ' 

As a specimen of this genre of literature, which first appears 
in the 2d cent., the apocalyptic portion of Dan., cc. 7-12, must 
logically be placed about that age.^^ The idea of such ancient 
mystical literature may go back early in Babylonia. Berossus 
(Eus., Chron., i, ed. Schoene, p. 14) tells how the mythical mon- 
ster Oannes not only [taught men civilization but "committed 
this book {Xoyov — i.e., on politics) to men," a story exactly com- 
parable to the legends of Enoch and of Moses as author of Jubi- 
lees." This was a kind of Hterature that naturally came to the 
fore in the competitions of the wisdoms of the peoples in the 
Hellenistic age and their precipitation in Greek literary form, in 
which movement Berossus, Manetho, and Sanchuniathon stand 
forth; the latter records (Eus., Praep. ev., i, 10) that the seven 
Kabiri and their eighth brother Asklepios ' set down these things 
in memoirs (vTrofivrjfiara)/ a datum which would easily have 
induced, if it was not actually based upon, literary compositions. 
But the closest examples of prophetic apocalyptic pseudographs 
like those of the Jews in the 2d cent, are found in Egyptian 
literature. Of these the most striking is the so-caUed Demotic 

This Demotic text, in script and composition, belongs to the 
3d cent. It contains a series of obscure prophecies, accompanied 
with an interpretation, oracle by oracle, with the fiction that 
the interpretation was composed under the native king Tachos 

'' The case is entirely different from the anonymous prophecies of the O.T. and 
the supplements made to the Prophets. It is also different from the ancient Heb. 
Apocalyptic like the Songs of Jacob and Moses, the Balaam Cycle, to which no 
apocryphal flavor is attached; s. §20, n. 4. 

" Cf. Zimmern, KAT 530/. 

'' For this document, first published by Spiegelberg and commented upon by him 
and E. Meyer, and for the similar Egyptian literature sec now the admirable dis- 
cussion by C. C. McCown, 'Hebrew and Egyptian Apocalyptic Literature,' Har- 
vard Theol. Rev., 1925, 357-411. 


(360 B.C.) ; up to his time the series of Egyptian kings is presented 
by name; but after Tachos the history is sketched in ambiguous 
allusions to the subsequent kings and to the dominion of the 
Persians and the Greeks, after which there is to be a national 
restoration with the glorification of the Law, i.e., the Egyptian 
religion. The parallelism particularly with Dan. lo-ii is evi' 
dent; here the alleged writer of the 6th cent, presents the series 
of the ostensibly future Persian and Greek kings in a veiled way, 
but entirely intelligible to one possessing the key of history. 
The Visions of Dan. appear then to belong to a definite genre of 
religious literature exemplified very clearly in Egypt in the 3d 
cent., although the phenomenon of Apocalyptic there as in Israel 
is of much older origin. 



In its contributions to Apocalyptic, Eschatology, etc., the bk. 
of Dan. erjoys a sovereign place in O.T. theology. At the same 
time, as the connecting hinge between the Heb. Canon and later 
Apocalyptic, the bk. serves as an introduction to the later Juda- 
istic literature, with the result that it has been exhaustively 
handled from every angle. It seems therefore unnecessary to 
repeat much of the detail of what has been so well and thor- 
oughly said and it suffices to confine this Section to a reasoned 
presentation of the theology of the bk. that will help fix it in its 
genetic and chronological relations. ^ 

The bk. belongs as a whole to the category of Apocalyptic, 
which itself is a process out of Prophecy. The term itself does 
not express a distinction from Prophecy, for the latter equally 
'reveals' the things known only to God.^ And it is difficult to 

' Among recent comm. Dr. has an exceptionally full and lucid treatment of the 
theology of the bk., pp. Lxxvi-xcviii; and Behrmann's treatment, pp. xxii-xxvi, de- 
serves notice for its compactness and independence of judgment. In addition to 
standard Diet, articles and O.T. Theologies {n.b. Stade-Bertholet and Konig) an(J 
the Introductions to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, there may be noted par- 
ticularly the works of Volz, Bousset, Charles, Wicks, Meyer {Ursprung, 2, cc. 2, 
4, 6), Foakes Jackson (i, 126 Jf.) and the well-balanced and sympathetic Introduc- 
tion to the subject by Porter (Messages); also the treatments by Bousset and Charles 
in the Introductions to their comm. on the Apocalypse of John. 

2 ' A-KOv-oiXu^ic, appears first with a theological sense in Judaistic bks. in the N.T., 
although it is used of the telling of human secrets Ecclus. 22^^, 42'. But the vbs. 
ivaxaXuTCTstv and a-o-/.. are used respectively by (& and to translate nSj, e.g., 


draw any hard-and-fast line between Prophecy and Apocal>ptic, 
for we find in many prophetic oracles of the O.T., especially those 
of uncertain date and authorship, a process leading up to the 
more definite characteristics that stamp our bk. and others of 
its class.2 Ezekiel has a full-blown Apocal>^tic, both in his Gog 
and Magog prophecy, cc. 38/., and in his prospect of the physi- 
cal remaking of the Holy Land, cc. 47 /. From that time on we 
have an increasing stream of such apocalyptic prophecy, e.g., 
Joel, Zech., Is. 24-27.'* 

The feature that in general distinguishes later Apocalyptic 
from earlier Prophecy so called consists in the transcendent ele- 
ment. As we move down through this literature there more and 
more appears the sharp division between this world and another 
world, or, as it is put in Dan., between the kingdoms of this 
world and the Kingdom of God. It comes to be no longer, as in 
the Ezekielian Apocalyptic, a provincial matter of this earth, the 
setting off of a Holy State and People which the rest of the world 
dare not touch. But the antithesis now covers the whole world; 
it is man's organized empire as against God's. And the several 
parabolic schemes of Dan. picture this antithesis in ever sharper 
terms until at last there is the incarnation of this worldly defiance 
of God in one atheistic person. The rupture between the divine 
regime and the empire of man has grown wider and wider, until 
as in the days before the Flood there is required a divine inter- 
ference to restore the Rule of God. 

It is in this respect that Apocal}-ptic differs from Prophecy, in 
the ever increasing accent laid upon the necessity which will in- 
volve not merely the political and military triumph of God, of 

2". The Syr. equivalent noun is gclydna. The technical terms of Apocalyptic appear 
in Dan.: ?n (Pers.), 'mystery'; NnpTi', 'depths' (c/. Bab. nUnelfu, 'wisdom'); 
Nn.-DC, 'hidden things.' n occurs in BSir. 8'', 12", but only in the sense of a 
private secret; it looks as if the word only secondarily obtained its technical mng. 
For similar antique use of nVj cf. 'having the eyes uncovered' of the seer Nu. 24*, 
and a revelation 'in the ears of the prophet Is. 22". 

2 Even the element of definite timed prophecies, comparable to the Weeks and 
Days in Dan., appears earlier, e.g., not only the disputed 70 weeks of Jeremiah, but 
also the Isaianic oracle. Is. y'** cj. 8^; also Jeremiah's prediction of the death of Hana- 
niah, 28'«f-. 

* Critics have erred in too rigorously adjudging Apocalyptic as late, and Gressmann 
and Gunkel are right in trying to correct the balance. The antique Blessings of 
Jacob, Moses and Balaam are true Apocalypses. We should rather say that Apoca- 
lyptic is the revival of very ancient oracle-forms, with consequently a domestic his- 
tory within the Heb. religion. 


his people or his Messiah, upon the earth, as in the elder escha- 
tology, but also an absolute change in the conditions of this 
world, such as can effect a perfect theatre for the divine King- 
dom. And the development of the world's history toward the 
creation of a single world-wide empire only the more accentuated 
the contrast between human and divine ideals. Hence Apocalyp- 
tic becomes a theological philosophy of history, differing from 
the elder philosophy of the Historians as well as the Prophets 
of the O.T. in its far greater sophistication, purchased through 
bitter experience. It has reached the mental resolution that the 
empire of man cannot save itself, nor be saved by natural cause 
and effect, that even the Holy People cannot save themselves by 
their own heroism, but that God alone can set things right which 
have gone so far awry. In the elder Prophecy God was conceived 
as using the units of this world one against the other to effect his 
sovereign purposes for the world. Isaiah could interpret Assyria 
as God's chastising instrument and Jeremiah and the Rhapso- 
dist of the Exile regarded Pagan kings as God's Servants and 
Messiahs. But these were casual explanations that were ever 
frustrated. That kind of optimism died out after the Exile. 
There was no Jewish reaction to Alexander's triumphs. Indeed, 
under Hellenism, and even earlier under the late Persian em- 
pire, a new disturbing factor had arisen outside of the sphere of 
politics, namely in the more crucial field of society and civiliza- 
tion. As Judaism withdrew into itself, realizing that it was not 
merely one of the many religions of the earth but the True Re- 
ligion, so much the more it brought upon itself the hatred of its 
neighbors for its unsociability and 'inhumanity,' the same 
charges as later made against the Christians. The sense of this 
acute opposition appears in the two stories of persecution for re- 
ligion's sake, Dan. 3. 6, which are paralleled by the romances of 
'anti-Semitic' passion in Esther and Judith, all which stories 
antedate the Antiochian persecution. 

Comparative Jewish literature shows that the development of 
Apocalyptic, thus defined and described, does not appear until 
well down in the Hellenistic period. Indeed, there is nothing ap- 
proaching its definition until we reach Dan. and the primitive 
parts of Enoch and the Sibylline Oracles in the 2d cent. It will 
be argued in §21 that Dan. 1-6 is earlier than cc. 7-12, i.e., of 
the 3d cent. But for the earlier portion, in c. 2 the theme of the 


ever degenerating series of world monarchies is already worked 
out, and the moral deduction of their necessary annihilation is 
presented in the Stone which is to grind them in pieces. But 
there is absent the bitterness of antagonism that appears in the 
development of the same theme in cc. 7-12; the actual Atheist 
sitting in high places vowing the destruction of the Religion has 
not yet appeared in the person of Antiochus. Thus it can be ob- 
served that Apocalyptic had its slow process, connecting legiti- 
mately with elder Prophecy, on the other hand preparing for 
the crucial issue which the sense of the People of the Religion 

The characteristics of this later Apocalyptic, in which Dan. 
leads the way, are closely interknit. They may be presented as 
follows: The transcendental character of the Deity; his operation 
through intermediate spiritual agencies, e.g., the 'humanlike' 
Gabriel who acts as his viceroy and also as medium of inspira- 
tion; the transfer of the stage of history to the heavenly places 
in the archetypal contests between the Princes of the Nations, 
of Persia and Greece, of Israel in the person of Michael ; the lim- 
ited dualism which allows a long and weary struggle between 
the cause of God and the evil opposition in heaven as in earth; 
a theological determinism which regards all history as foreor- 
dained, a copy stamped from the drama already enacted above, 
involving the exact calculation of secular years and days; and 
then the logical consecjuence that all this exactly enacted drama 
could be communicated to a seer living long before the culmina- 
tion of events, under orders to close and seal the book of revela- 
tion which has been given him 'until the time of the end,' then 
to be opened and read in proof of the divine ordering of events 
in explanation of the delay of the times and for the assurance of 
the saints through this guarantee of the divine determinism that 
the dawn will soon break out of the darkness.^ 

These characteristics have in general their roots in the elder 
Heb. religion. The transcendentalism of later Judaism was a 

' The writer believes that Apocalyptic is not an 'Abart' but a legitimate develop- 
ment of Prophecy. In this he agrees in general with Charles. The stress of the 
moral and religious issue of this later age broke down the inadequate reasoning of 
the Prophets that the right triumphs in this world as it is. The bk. of Job is the 
earliest protest against the prophetic euda;monism. 

*0n this 'apocryphal' characteristic s. §19, g. 


necessary result of the vast broadening of the Jew's perspective of 
nature and human society. It is far more difficult, speaking phil- 
osophically, to realize the nearness of God in a large world than 
in a small one. Indeed, every higher religion is a composition, 
not very static, between notions of transcendentalism and im- 
manence. Transcendentalism had set in in Judaism long before 
the 2d cent., as the contrast of the two Stories of Creation in the 
opening of the Bible shows. And this view of a more distant God 
involved logically the postulation of intermediate agencies. God 
rules the political world as the Pers. monarch did his provinces 
by almost autonomous satraps, the Princes, and similarly the 
world of nature, as appears in the late Psalms and in the Bene- 
dicite, through the spirits of nature, which are not altogether per- 
sonifications. Such notions stand simply for what modern the- 
ology blandly calls secondary causes. In regard to the Princes of 
the nations we have an ancient theologumenon going back to 
the Elim or Bene Elohim who constituted God's court, among 
whom he distributed his powers as viceroys in the different parts 
of the world; so in the Song of Moses, Dt. 32^- ^, ace. to the 
doubtless original text of (S. These beings he used as spiritual 
and poUtical agents in the world, e.g., Eze. 9. 10, Zech. xf., Job 
I. 2, etc. One advance appears in Dan. beyond the earlier lit- 
erature of the Heb. canon, we obtain personal names for two of 
these celestial personages, Gabriel and Michael; yet the earlier 
bk. of Tobit knows also of Raphael (the el of healing), 'one of 
the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and 
go in before the glory of the Holy One,' 12'^, i.e., an elaborate 
doctrine with the notion of angelic mediation. 

There is a pronounced moral dualism in the bk., but it is dis- 
tinctly limited. It presents the conflict between the ingrained 
evil of the kingdoms of this world and the divine imperimn. This 
has its archetype in the heavens, where a primal conflict is being 
waged among the divine satraps, wherein the divine viceroy 
Gabriel can count only upon the loyalty of Michael the Prince 
of Israel. But this conflict of spiritual powers has its thoroughly 
Biblical antecedents. The transgression of the Sons of God, 
Gen. 6, indicates the primitiveness of this notion in Hebrew cir- 
cles; notions of the conflicts of purpose in the heavenly courts, 
of the imperfection of the divine courtiers, appear in Job, and 
had become crystallized in Scripture by the poetical allusions to 


the ancient myths of the Dragon, Rahab, Leviathan, etc. We 
recall that this explanation of the origin of sin became a domi- 
nant one in certain Jewish circles. Our bk. is in line with that 
development in seeking a transcendental explanation of sin and 
evil; this belonged to the growing pains of a reasoned moral the- 
ology. In any ethical monotheism there comes a stage when the 
thinker realizes, and truly, that the evil of the world is not at- 
tributable to man alone; it is too stupendous a factor to be de- 
duced from man's conscience of sin. The complete step to a 
principled dualism was made by Zoroastrianism. But in com- 
parison with that the dualism of Dan. is of modest proportions. 
There is here no speculation on the origin of evil, the Princes 
are not regarded as fallen angels; the bk. is a pathetic but not 
hopeless commentary on the ancient discovery that man's 
thought is altogether evil (Gen. 6, Jer., passim), and that the 
divine impermm must ultimately crush this rebellious antithesis 
to its will. And it is significant that no Prince of Evil is devised, 
a Satan or a Belial, for which notion there were good Scriptural 
antecedents, and the earlier existence of which is attested by 
Tobit with its fiend, the Pers. Asmodaeus, 3^•^^ The bk is con- 
cerned with actual human history, and its arch-fiend is an athe- 
istic king who within a brief space will meet his doom.'^ Alto- 
gether Dan. takes a very sober position in the elaborate dualistic 
development which was in the air of the Judaism of its day. 

Determinism is a far more definite factor in the theology of 
the bk. than elsewhere in the O.T. But it must not be offhand 
adjudged a foreign importation. Monotheism easily spells de- 
terminism, witness Augustinianism, Calvinism, Muslim fatalism. 
The prophetical books which the seer consulted, 9^, gave a Scrip- 
tural basis to this idea. The most un-Biblical expression of the 
notion is found in c. 4, where Neb.'s fate is fixed 'by the decree 
of the Watchers, by the word of the Holy Ones,' v.^^^^^ But 
this exceptional statement, which has its Biblical prototype in 
the 'we' of the divine council, e.g., Gen. i-'', may in part, at 
least, be attributed ta the true dramatic coloring of the story; 
the Pagan king is addressed in the kind of language his sages 

' It is therefore incorrect to speak of a Danielic Antichrist, except in so far as 
Antiochus became the Scriptural core of such later speculations. This historical lim- 
itation of the theme of evil absolutely distinguishes our bk. from Pers. dualism, the 
Parsee literature in fact having no historical sense. 


might have indulged in.^ But this faint trace of fatahsm is fugi- 
tive: when Neb. comes to himself and recognizes the one God, 
he is forgiven and restored, whereas repentance has no place in 
fatalism. Judaism possessed the saving salt of a personal religion 
rooted in the faith in a Living God, and it never was corrupted by 
philosophical logic. The prayers of Daniel in cc. 2. 9 are a cor- 
rective to any such deductions for the theology of the bk.* 

There is, finally, one unique contribution to Biblical eschatol- 
ogy, namely the assertion of the resurrection of 'many' from 
their graves, 'some to everlasting life and some to shame, to 
everlasting abhorrence,' 12^ There is nothing approximating 
this clear-cut notion outside of the late apocalyptic document, 
Is. 24-27, where we read (26'^): 'May Thy dead live, may my 
dead bodies arise ! [Response] Awake and sing, ye that dwell in 
the dust, for Thy dew is as the dew of light [?], and the earth 
shall bring to life the shades.' What is poetry there has become 
dogma here, and the resurrection involves a moral judgment, 
so that some of the wicked are included (with reminiscence of 
Is. 66^'*). But there remains the limitation of the resurrection to 
some only of either party. And the sphere of this resurrection 
is evidently this world. Outside of that doctrine the eschatology 
of the bk. is most meagre. The only other real eschatological 
feature appears in the vision of the heavenly Assize in c. 7. 
There, it is true, a judgment scene in heaven is depicted: but 
God's people are represented only symbolically by the 'like of a 
man,' just as the heathen kingdoms are figured by monstrous 
beasts. And the consummation of the judgment is the donation 
to the Saints of the Highest 'of the kingdoms under the whole 
earth,' i.e., God's kingdom is to be established on earth in the 
hands of his Saints. Here is the usual Biblical nationalistic and 
secular eschatology without further development; the writer's 
contribution is literary, not dogmatic. Noticeable is the lack of 
a Messianic figure, although the figure of the 'Son of Man' in 
c. 7 promptly lent itself to the formulation of a heavenly Mes- 
siah. Finally it is to be observed that this hope of the resurrec- 
tion is typical of the individualism of later Judaism; salvation 

^ This dramatic presentation of the Pagan atmosphere is a notable feature of the 

' Jewish scholars have rightly rebelled against such one-sided misinterpretations. 
See the fine retort by Montefiore, 'The Spirit of Judaism,' in Foakes Jackson, i, 35 ff. 


is no longer for all Israel after the flesh; the Saints compose the 
ecclesia in ecdesia. 

In this review there appears little that is otherwise than genu- 
ine development of the older Bible religion. Without doubt 
there was a quickening of Jewish theology from without, for the 
religions of the ancient world were passing through identical 
changes in close contact with one another, and the sympathy 
of experience must have favored interchanges. The tendency 
toward monotheism, the problems involved in a moral rule of 
the universe and in the fate of the individual, even scientific 
speculations, these factors are found working from Persia to 
Egypt and Greece in the West. But the bk. of Dan. remains 
essentially Jewish, and in this respect differs from most of the 
later apocalyptic literature, which is generally marked by a 
crass eclecticism. The first six cc. present a background of 
Babylonian heathenism, which still survived under the Persian, 
Greek and Parthian dominions. Some would indeed have it 
that there is a heavy deposit of Bab. myth and lore in Dan., e.g., 
Gunkel, Schopjung u. Chaos, but such views depend upon many 
assumptions; s. Comm. to c. 7. But the bk. is a standing protest 
against Babylonism.^" 

The influence of Parsism, the religion of Zoroaster, upon the 
theology and literature of Judaism in this period, with the in- 
clusion of Dan., is stoutly championed by many. The notion 
was taken up speculatively by scholars of the i8th cent., Ber- 
tholdt was under its sway, Kohut and others argued for it, and 
so particularly, Bousset, s. his c. 25, 'Das religionsgeschichtl. 
Problem.' Most recently E. Meyer has appeared as a rigorous 
champion of this influence upon Jewish theology in general and 
the bk. of Dan. in particular; s. his cc. 4. 6 and pp. 174-199. 
This position is based upon the major premise of his enthusiastic 
admiration for the work of Zoroaster as ' the first personality to 
enter the history of religion with creative worth' (p. 58), while 
he makes him the real founder of a cosmic monotheism vs. the 
Jewish particularism of a provincial god (<:/. p. 73). But the 
whole question of that influence in the comparison of religions 
is sorely complicated and rendered most uncertain by the doubts 
as to the age of the Parsee documents. In the discussion of the 

" See Meyer's arguments against the postulation of such influence, pp. Si JJ. Of 
course he is swayed by his pro-Persian penchant. 


Four Monarchies in the Comm. after c. 2 the writer has pre- 
sented the differences of views of scholars as to the age of the 
documents and the rise of formulated Parsee orthodoxy. The 
shaft let down in the discussion of that one theme makes him 
sceptical; he feels that the sources of the Pers. religion are oper- 
ated with in as uncritical a way as if in the O.T. a critic should 
accept J and P indifferently for the Mosaic age. 

The above presentation of the theology of the bk. shows that 
it contains no principled dualism. The doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion breaks forth very naturally in our bk. as born of an emer- 
gency, and yet taking its place in a genetic catena of growing be- 
lief toward such a necessary dogma. Moreover there is nothing 
cosmic in the belief there presented; some of the righteous, some 
of the wicked, of Israel alone, will arise in their bodies for judg- 
ment. In the matter of the Four Monarchies Daniel thinks, as 
has been above remarked, historically, not theologically; four 
ages may have been given him by some cosmic, numerical 
scheme (the Greeks had it), but if so he is adapting it to a clear 
historical order of four actual empires.'^ The Ancient of Days, 
remarks Meyer, 'is none other than Ahuramazda' (p. 199). But 
do not all people think naively of the Deity as 'der Alte' — a 
magnified Sheich ? The Greeks so depicted their chief god Zeus 
on their coins. Whether mythical traits may not, indirectly 
perhaps, have come in from Persia (where others think of Baby- 
lon) may be an open question; e.g., the river of fire under the 
throne of the Ancient of Days, as Meyer claims (pp. 166, 199), 
and yet that fire is not represented as a means of purgation as 
in Parsism, nor is fire a monopoly of the Parsee apparatus, cf. 
Is. 30^^. For the much-discussed 'Son of Man' a Pers. origin is 
offered, by Bousset in the Parsee 'Urmensch' (p. 407), by Meyer, 
very cavalierly, in a combination of Sraosha the Genius of reli- 
gion and the Parsee savior Saoshyant (p. 199). But in Dan. 7 
the Son of Man is a symbol which forthwith disappears. There 
has been noted above, §8, b, the very slow and small impress 
that the Pers. language made upon the Semitic idioms; we have 
to postulate equal delay in the spread of Parsee influence. It is 
more apparent in the N.T. than in the O.T., still more evident 

'^ Meyer thinks, p. i8g, that a Median empire were absurd, because there was 
none; yet the author deliberately introduces the Median Darius between Belsh. and 


in the Rabbinic literature; that is, its influence was late, not 
early. ^^ 

For the Jewish praxis of religion the bk. has its historic value: 
n.h. the punctilious observance of the food laws, i^^-; alms and 
good works, 4'^; the three times of prayer 6" '^°\ prayer by run- 
ning water, 8^, and in general the place of prayer in piety, 2^'' ^■ 
(in contrast to the arts of the magicians). The long prayer in 
c. 9 is an early liturgical specimen, and there are brief liturgical 
Benedictions, 2-"^-, 3^3 (43), 43^. (34f.)^ 6"'-«>f-. Self-mortifica- 
tion is practised in hope of a vision, lo^ Repentance is a char- 
acteristic of piety, and is accepted from Pagans, 4-'* '"^ of whom 
the works of the Law are not required. Judaism is not a pros- 
elytizing religion; the Pagan confession of the True God is 
sufficient, as in the cases of Neb. and Darius. Cc. 1-6 reflect 
the life of pious Jews in the heathen environment of Baby- 

Behrmann holds (p. xxv) that the bk. is a product of the 
Essene development of the Chasidic type of religion; but too 
long a lapse exists between the bk. and our first sources for 
Essenism to pass judgment. On the other hand, cc. 7-12 are 
an authentic monument of primitive Chasidism, the 'Ao-iSaToi 
of I Mac. 2''2, 713. Our bk. represents the principled pacifistic 
wing of the party. In 11^'' there is a solitary reference to Judas' 
enterprise, ' when they shall stumble, they shall be helped with 
a little help ' ; but there follows immediate criticism of the move- 
ment for its worldly complications, 'many shall join themselves 
unto them in intrigue.' The writer was nearer the primitive type 
of the party which preferred death to fighting on the Sabbath 
(i Mac. i"*^), and he rejoices in the present martyrdoms in view 
of the prize that is set before them, ii^^- ^^ very much in the 
spirit of the early Christians. Not by militant means shall the 
tyrant be overthrown, but 'he shall be broken without hand,' 
i.e., without visible agency, 8^^ while the Saints shall inherit the 
Kingdom not by their might but by gift of the Highest, 7". 

'^ For this distinction s. Scheftelowitz, Die dtpers. Religion u. d. Judcntum, ig20. 



a. The two hooks, the Stories and the Visions.'^ 

The criticism of the unity of the bk. began in the 17 th cent, 
with the observation of the distinction of languages, the Aram, 
and Heb.; Spinoza discovered two documents, cc. 1-7 and 8-12, 
referring the latter to the undoubted authorship of Dan., and 
confessing ignorance as to the origin of the former. The distinc- 
tion between the Stories and the Visions was first made by Sir 
Isaac Newton: " The bk. of Dan. is a collection of papers written 
at several times. The six last chapters contain Prophecies writ- 
ten at several times by Dan. himself; the sLx first are a collection 
of historical papers written by other authors"; and cc. i. 5. 6 
were written after his death.- Eichhorn in his EinleUung^, §615, 
while denying the authenticity of the whole bk., followed the 
distinction between the Stories and Visions, but aligned the 
Heb. preface c. i with cc. 7 f. J. D. Michaelis first originated 
a fragmentary hypothesis, holding that Dan. consists of ' several 
separate pieces,' any one of which may be rejected as historical 
without prejudice to the others {Or. n. exeg. Bibliothek, i (1771), 
190). And Bertholet in his comm., 1806, proceeded to a diagno- 
sis of nine different sources. Thus the possibilities of critical 
analysis were early sounded. 

But a critical distinction on the basis of diversity of language 
is now generally denied. The extreme positions taken respec- 
tively by the defenders and the impugners of the historicity of 
Dan. have induced the great majority of critics to assign the 

' Apart from the relevant sections in the comm. and Introductions, there are 
monographs by Meinhold, Beitrdgc zur Erkldrung d. Biiches Daniel, Heft I, Dan. 2-6, 
1888 (rev. by Budde, TLZ 18S8, no. 26); von Gall, Die Einheitlichkeit d. Buches 
Dan., i8qs; Barton, 'The Composition of the Bk. of Dan.,' JBL 1898, 62-86 {d. 
Marti, p. x); H. Preiswerk, Der Sprachwechsel im Buche Dan. (Berne Diss.), 1902 
(rev. by Mein., TLZ 1904, 353); G. Holscher, 'Die Entstehung d. B. Dan.,' TSK 
192 1, 1 13-138. An early defence of the unity of the bk. was made by Bleek, 'tjber 
Verfasser u. Zweck des B. Dan.,' Thcol. Zcitsch., 3 (1822), 171, noticed in these mon- 

2 For these reS. s. Mein., pp. i /., vGall, pp. i /. Spinoza's brief comment is found 
in his Traclatus theologico-polilicus, ed. 1674, c. 10, p. 189; Newton's in his Observa- 
tions upon the Prophecies of Dan. and the Apocalypse of St. John, ed. 1732, p. 10 = 
Whitla's ed., p. 145. Von Gall also notices Beausobre, Remarques stir le Nouveau 
Testament, 1742, p. 70, agreeing with Newton and drawing distinction between the 
ist and the 3d pers. in the two parts. 

§2 1 A. THE TWO BOOKS 89 

bk. as a whole to either the 6th or the 2d cent., with as a rule 
little or no discussion on part of the comm. of the possibility of 
composite origin; indeed most ignore the problem.^ 

Before discussing the various views which have been proposed 
the writer will state his positive opinion. The bk. falls into two 
obvious Hterary portions, cc. 1-6 the Stories, and cc. 7-12 the 
Visions. C. 1-2^=* is absolutely necessary as introduction to the 
following Stories, and it is difficult to see how scholars, e.g., Eich- 
horn, Mein., distinguish it as later.* C. 7 is pure apocalypse, like 
cc. 8_^., and it is fallacious to appeal to c. 2 as also apocalyptic, 
for that story tells of a heathen's dream and its interpretation 
by the hero of the Story, as in the tale of Joseph and Pharaoh. 
Further, it must be positively denied, as earlier conservative 
comm., and now Mein., Holscher, have rightly insisted, that 
Neb. and Darius are types of the infamous Antiochus, or that 
the trials of the confessors in the bk. represent the Mace, martyr- 
doms.^ They do stand for the fact that Anti-Semitism (in the 
modern sense) is much older than the Mace, age, and was not 
confined to the Syrian empire. Our Stories follow the doubtless 
true historical theme of underhand efforts of ofiicials and the 
jealous populace to embroil the Jews with the government on 
the score of their religion; but these Stories, like Est., correctly 
show that the imperial administrations refused to take action 
against the Jews, the instigators of those sporadic, underhand 
persecutions being represented as 'hoist with their own petard.' 
Neb. and Darius stand forth as amiable, religious-minded mon- 
archs. The miraculous deliverances of the Confessors portray 
the truly remarkable fact that the Jews under the successive 
Pagan empires down to the Roman found their rights providen- 
tially maintained by the imperial government. Only in the case 

' E.g., Dr., in his comm., with only a brief paragraph on the subject in LOT 514. 
Von Gall presents an extensive argument for the unity of the bk., rejecting only the 
Prayer in c. 9 as an interpolation. Konig, in his Einleit., suggests that cc. 1-7 were 
composed in 168, cc. 8-12 in 165. 

< But Mein. must be credited for the distinction of the pre-Maccabajan (cc. 2-6) 
and Mace. (cc. 7-8) sections, even if, as vGall insists, some of his argumentation is 
fallacious. Strack, in his Einleit.^- *, proposed the pre-Macc. origin of cc. 1-7. 

' Bevan gives up the case for the unity of the bk. on this score in his very frank 
admission, p. 23: "It is however necessary to guard against a possible misconcep- 
tion. Though the author of Dan. has everywhere the circumstances of his own time 
in view, we cannot regard Neb. and Belsh., still less Darius the Mede, simply as 
portraits of Ant. Epiph. The author is contending not against Ant. personally, 
but against the heathenism of which Ant. was the champion." 


of Belsh. is there condemnation of the monarch, but here the 
story is following popular Bab. tradition. 

There is a further induction from the Stories which has not 
been drawn by others except those who hold that the whole bk. 
belongs to the Babylonia of the 6th cent., namely that cc. i-6 
are of Bab. provenance. Corroboration of this position is given 
by the fact that almost all the Akk. and Pers. words appear in 
cc. 1-6.^ Nor are we in the position to maintain that the Aram, 
of the bk. is the Western dialect; s. §7, n. 5. Further, the his- 
torical background of these cc. is Babylonian. Again, their 
sumptuous barbaric scenery is obviously not that of Palestine; 
one need only compare the arid scenery of the later cc. And the 
interest in traditional heroes of the Bab. exile must belong to the 
Golah in Babylonia. Critics naturally assign the bk. of Tobit to 
an 'Assyrian' origin, and that of Judith as naturally to a Pal- 
estinian, while with equal logic Est. should be located in Persia. 
Finally, as has been recognized by some, the conflict between 
i", 'Dan. continued {i.e., remained where he was) until the first 
year of king Cyrus,' and the datum of the third year of that 
king, with the locality given as the Tigris (iqI- ■*), is cleared up: 
the implication of the first bk., cc. 1-6, is that Dan. and his 
faithful companions returned home at once upon Cyrus' proc- 
lamation of release. And actually in the Chronicler's lists of re- 
turned exiles we find a Mishael, Azariah, and Hananiah, Neh. 
g4. 3. 24 along with a Daniel, 10^. 

b. The problem of the two languages. 

This problem may be considered here, as the boundaries of 
the two languages approximate the distinction between the two 
bks., cc. 1-6 and 7-12. Dalman's solution, in which he has been 
followed, evidently independently, by Torrey, is the only one 
which recommends itself to the present writer. Dalman, after 
postulating those two bks., proceeds: the redactor must first 
have turned the preface, c. i, into Heb., and then translated the 
Heb. c. 7 into Aram., and so have bonded the two into one 

• Paton's reasoning for the Palestinian origin of Est. in his comm., p. 64, is not 
obvious: "It is a plausible suggestion that the author was a Persian who had come 
to live in Judaea." 


whole; and so exactly Torrey.^ This change into the Holy 
Tongue would have faciUtated recognition of the bk. as sacred 
and eligible for the Canon, while dramatically enough the Aram, 
could be allowed to stand with the citation of the Chaldaeans' 
response to the king, 2*, and so on.^ A variant suggestion may 
be made as to the language of c. 7. Granting that it belongs in- 
tegrally with the following cc, their author, who was deliber- 
ately depending upon the elder bk. of Dan., may have continued 
its language in his first composition, and subsequently have re- 
verted to Heb. as the more suitable tongue for divine revelation, 
the use of which would have been appropriate to the enthusiasm 
of the Mace, uprising. ^ But see sub-sect, (c) for another possible 
precision of c. 7. 

Other hypotheses advanced for this change in language are 
most diverse. ^"^ The simplest view, on the assumption that we 
possess the bk. in its original linguistic form, is that the bilingual 
composer passed easily from his Heb. introduction into the 
Aram, of the citation 2^^- and then continued in the vernacular; 
the phenomenon would then be similar to the Aram, section in 
Ezr., beginning at 4^ with an official document. But this theory" 
does not explain why c. 7 continues the Aram., and the change 
to Heb. is made with c. 8. 

A favored theory is one broached first by Lenormant (as cited 
by Bevan and Haupt) and followed by Bevan (p. 27), vGall 
(p. 122), Haupt (at 2^^ in Kamp., SBOT), Prince (p. 13) and 

' Dalman, Worte Jesu, 1898, 11; Torrey, Notes, I, 249. Holscher, who appears to 
be ignorant of those scholars' position, and Preiswerk maintain also that the preface 
is a reversion into Heb. He and Torrey find evidence of an Aram, original, but both 
admit that this evidence is not conclusive. 

' This does not involve the absurdity that it was thought even by a late redactor 
that this vernacular Aram, was the 'language of the Chaldeans,' i"*. 

' However, Preiswerk (pp. 77-91) makes a strong argument for c. 7 as translation 
from Heb., alleging not only Hebraisms, but more convincingly showing that it can 
be easily reverted into Heb. as its parallel c. 2 hardly can be so treated, while also 
c. I is an easy subject for reversion into Aram. The authors of the pertinent mono- 
graphs have noted the dialectic distinctions between this c. and cc. 2-6: the sole use 
of Ithpeel and Ithpaal vs. Hithp. in the earlier cc. (where however Ithp. 3", 4'^, 6') 
and the use of nt< (but once iSn v. ') vs. iSn in cc. 2-6. The large number of 
Hofals is also noticeable. 

'° See Charles' review of the discussion, pp. xix-xxvi. 

" So, e.g., Behr., p. ii, Kamp., EB i, 1005, with the indorsement by Dr. as 'rela- 
tively best,' p. xxii. Ryssel, TLZ 1895, S^'o. offered a theory of a progressive com- 
position by one author: cc. 1-7 in Aram., then cc. 8-12 in Heb., upon which he 
began reverting into Heb., breaking off however with the citation in 2*. 


Barton (p. 65) that "a portion of the Heb. text having been 
lost, a scribe filled up the gap by borrowing from the Aram, ver- 
sion" (which already existed), so Bevan, citing Antiochus' sys- 
tematic attempt to destroy the Law. But this hypothesis stum- 
bles on the fact that Aram, begins neatly at the appropriate 

The view of a Heb. original for the whole bk. is maintained by 
Riessler, §§3. 4, and by Jahn at length, the latter reverting the 
whole of d into Heb. in order to recover the alleged original. 
But s. §11 on this perverted appreciation of the text of (U, and 
the conclusive detailed criticism of Riessler by Preiswerk, pp. 


Just the opposite view was advancea oy Huet (d. 1721) in his 

Demonstratio evangclica, 472 (cited by Bert., p. 51): the whole 
bk. was composed in Aram, and then translated into Heb.; in 
the Mace, troubles the Heb. bk. was in large part lost and the 
lacunae filled up from the orig. Aram. This view has been re- 
vived by Buhl ('Daniel,' PRE^ 451) and accepted by Marti and 
Charles (//. cc), and summarily by Wright, p. 46. But Marti's 
linguistic argument from the 'Aramaisms' in the present Heb. 
is most meagre. 

c. Further divisive theories. 

The suggestion that the bk. is a compilation of so many odd 
compositions was first made by J. D. Michaelis, who regarded 
it as compiled of 'abgesonderte Stucke' {Or. u. exeg. Bibliothek, 
I (1771), 190). Bertholet (pp. 49^/.) found nine separate pieces 
by as many different hands. Similarly Lagarde {GGA 1891, 508 
Jff.) considered the bk. a compilation of disconnected documents, 
and most recently Meyer {Ur sprung, 2, 184) expresses the opin- 
ion that "the bk. is composed of very different parts and has 
behind it a long history." But such positions, indicating a bank- 
ruptcy of criticism, have not found applause. It will be conve- 
nient to consider the two parts, cc. 1-6 and 7-12, separately in 
the search for their origins. 

i) In the Stories there appears a distinction between those con- 
cerning Dan. and that of the Three Confessors c. 3, while the 
preface, c. i, may be taken as a welding of the Daniel-cycle with 
that extraneous tale; this is the more obvious in that in c. 3 


Dan. is totally absent, so that commentators have been non- 
plussed in explaining the absence of the hero of the bk. from 
that ecumenical scene. This inconcinnity is typical of many 
others that have been pointed out. But such phenomena can be 
explained on the hypothesis that the narrator did not invent his 
theme here or in the other Stories, but was dependent upon exist- 
ing tales and traditions. C. 3, which in its form may be regarded 
as a counterpart to the Story of the Three Pages in i Esd., 
doubtless has a traditional background, with the motif of an 
Image that was to be worshipped (for which an historical basis 
can be found), while the fiery trial of the Confessors may be a 
popular amplification of the actual penalty inflicted upon re- 
bellious Jews ace. to Jer. 29^^, whom popular tradition turned 
into saints; s. Comm. In c. 4 we have the otherwise vouched-for 
madness of Neb., which would have afforded a most likely point 
d'appiii for moralization from the point of view of the True 
Religion. C. 5 contains particularly definite historical tradition; 
the fate of the last scion of the Bab. dynasty fitted in well with 
the expected theodicy upon Babylon, while the theme of Belsh.'s 
impiety (in contrast with the nobility of his 'father' Neb.) fol- 
lows the popular Bab. condemnation of the house of Nabonidus. 
In fact 6^ (5^°) with its exact datum about Darius can hardly 
otherwise be explained than as an extract from a written native 
document. C. 6 may be more particularly a free invention of the 
author, dependent indeed upon c. 3 and upon current martyr- 
motifs (likely enough in actual practice), and yet wholly fresh 
and original in its composition. Still more is the Story of Neb.'s 
dream, c. 2, the author's own independent work, dependent per- 
haps upon current themes of the Ages of the World, but worked 
up into an amazingly dramatic composition. Daniel may al- 
ready have become hero of current Jewish story (e.g., in the 
Belsh. episode), and the author of the whole would therefore 
have possessed some skeletons of narrative to which he would 
have naturally adhered. Such stories would naturally have been 
composed and published at different times, and this artless 
method of composition, without a purpose of an ultimate inte- 
gral book, would sufiiciently explain the numerous inconsisten- 
cies. '^ 

" See Holschcr, p. 115, for evidence of unity in cc. 1-6 from vocabulary and dic- 


Bert, found no less than five different writers in these Stories 
(cc. I. 2. 3. 4. 5-6), with most arbitrary assignment of their 
provenance, geographical as well as historical. Barton (s. note i) 
is the only recent scholar who has attempted an elaborate reduc- 
tion of the bk. into a number of distinct sources. Regarding it 
as practically Mace, in age, he discovers three original contribu- 
tors (s. table, p. 81): A cc. 2. 4. 5. 7. 8; B cc. 9. 6 (the latter pos- 
terior); C cc. 10-12; and c. 3 as 'possibly from yet another 
hand,' although related to A; a redactor collected the various 
writings, prefixed a preface, c. i, and contributed an epilogue, 
12^ '^•j along with verses and phrases intruded through the bk. 
A is Babylonian in culture and environment, B similarly Jewish, 
and C Persian. Barton's position as to the practical unity of 
time for the components of the bk. disagrees entirely with the 
view adopted above for the major distinction between cc. 1-6 
and 7-12; and it must be claimed that the difference between 
Story and Vision is far more obvious than any other marks of 
disparateness. Barton assumes compositions of so many vari- 
ous cultures; he does not go so far as to say that the authors 
lived in so many different lands (as does Bert.); but if they were 
so different, even leaving out of question their habitats, how did 
they all happen on the same theme, and this within the few 
years of the Mace, uprising, and how were their compositions all 
collected into one within so short a time ? It can hardly be held 
that the series of Babylonian and Medo-Persian kings offers 
clews of critical distinction, as the episodes simply follow the 
sequence of dynasties in the 6th cent, as understood by Jewish 
historiography, and if we admit composition of the bk. in the 
Hellenistic age, the background is the later complex of the sev- 
eral civilizations. 

2) The question of the unity of cc. 7-12 is more difficult. For 
the romances of cc. 1-6 we can attribute contradictions to the 
varieties of underlying traditions. But cc. 7-12 are apocalyptic, 
hence subjective compositions, and we possess no psychological 
standards whereby to determine the possibilities of variety in 
the one composer or to probe how far more than one is required. 
Barton correctly remarks (p. 78) that every one of the important 
apocalypses known is composite, unless Dan. be an exception. 
Yet as the actual Daniel-Apocalypse consists of only six chap- 
ters and must have arisen within a very few years, we have to 


be chary in pressing a fragmentary hypothesis too far. Barton 
finds in these cc. three main composers. Quite conservative 
scholars, Zockler, Wright, have desired to detach c. 11 from the 
original composition. And it has been assumed by many but 
chiefly from the accident of language, that c. 7 belongs with cc. 
1-6. ]\Iost recently Meyer has expressed the opinion that the 
'prophecies' of Dan. ofifer 'several doublets and parallel treat- 
ments of the same subject from quite different historical points 
of view' (p. 1 88). Accordingly, cc. 11 and g appear as distinct 
compositions (I.e.), while cc. 2. 4. 7. 8 constitute a separate 
corpus with distinct Parsee characteristics (pp. 189 _^.). 

Sellin (Int., 233 /.) would combine c. 7 with the pre-Macc. cc. 
1-6, and proposes that c. 7 has been expanded under the later 
Mace, point of view by the intrusion of direct references to the 
hateful Antiochus in the judgment scene; he would accordingly 
delete as unoriginal vv. *• ^°-'^'^- ^^f-. Holscher follows suit (pp. 
119/.), omits as a halting addition 'and it had ten horns,' v. ^, 
and then deletes vv. *• "''• ^°-''^- ^^f-; consequently he attributes 
c. 7, itself an appendix ('Anhang') to cc. 1-6, to the 3d cent. 
Holscher's arguments from the logic and language of the chap, 
are not at all conclusive; s. above, n. 9, for Preiswerk's demon- 
stration of its philological difference from the preceding cc. But 
it must be admitted, as Gunkel has shown, that c. 7 stands out 
uniquely in the bk. with its mythological background and 
visional scenery; the Beasts and the Throne appear as quite dif- 
ferent conceptions from the historical 'parables' of the Beasts 
in c. 8 (as also of the Tree in c. 2), and there is certainly a descent 
in poetic conception from c. 7 in the following cc.^^ The present 
writer is therefore inclined to leave it an open question whether 
c. 7 is a distinct composition, a forerunner of the apocalypses in 
the following cc, even without deletion of vv. which would re- 
late it to the Mace. age. Its linguistic distinction from subse- 
quent cc. might then be explained. However, the literary and 
psychological problem must be weighed, whether one and the 
same writer may not have developed from the vision in c. 7 and 
culminated in the veiled historical midrash of c. 11. Almost all 

" The reaction against the extreme of Pauline criticism should warn against too 
easily seeking explanation of variety in divisive hypotheses for our bk. And for cc. 
7 (or 8)-i2 we are shut up on any critical theory to a very brief term of years for 
room for literary accretions. 


Students agree that cc. 8-12 are from the same hand. Yet in 
these there is a noticeable variety; c. 8 has its symboHsm (which 
Meyer beUeves to be the explication of c. 7 by the same author), 
this disappears in c. 9, an angelic announcement taking its 
place, while the substance of the final vision is absolutely un- 
picturesque. Yet the prosaic character of these cc. is broken by 
the long and fervent prayer in c. 9, and by the vision of the Man 
in c. 10 which is told with psychological verisimilitude. Cer- 
tainly for cc. 8-12 {cf. Holscher), and it may be added for c. 7 as 
well {cf. vGall), although here we are dealing with a different 
language, no clear linguistic arguments can be adduced against 
their unity.^* 

d. The dating of the two sections. 

i) Cc. 1-6, according to the argument above, are pre-Macca- 
baean, composed in Babylonia: they may be roughly assigned to 
the 3d cent., to an age not earlier than the division of Alexander's 
empire by the Diadochi. More precisely we may not speak; s. 
Note at end of c. 2 for the ancient view of Polychronius, followed 
by Grot., Bert., Torrey, Holscher, that the 'mingling of the seed 
of men,' 2^^, refers to the marriage of Berenice, 247 B.C. The 
collection contains a series of stories based on Jewish and Bab. 
traditions, which were gradually written and finally compiled in 
one book. There is no reason to dispute the assumption of one 
literary hand for the whole. 

2) Cc. 7-12 belong to the first years of the Mace, uprising, 
168-165 B.C., the four Visions to be regarded as composed seria- 
tim.^^ In them the temple is pictured as profaned, but its res- 
toration is expected, along with the cataclysmic destruction of 
the tyrant. This is also the milieu of the last Vision, in which 
there is a passing reference to the militant and seemingly insig- 

" For extreme views of the origin of the book or of its sections may be noted that 
of E Havet, Le christianisme et ses origines, vol. 3 (1878), 304 X, suggesting that 
the second half belongs to the age of Herod; and that of Lagarde, in his review of 
Havet {GGA i8gi, 497-520), attributing cc. 7. 9-12 to 69 a.d. Cf. also Hertlein, Der 
Daniel der Rdmerzeit, igo8, assuming Roman age for final form of cc. 2-7, also his 
Menschensohnjrage im lelzien Stadium, 1911 (rev. by Volz, TLZ 1909, 357 and 1912, 


" For the possible exception of c. 7 as distinct from what precedes and follows, s. 
above [c\; but this hypothesis depends upon excision of passages which obviously 
refer to Ant. 


nificant Maccabees (ii^''), while the cUmax is expected in a final 
great battle in the Holy Land, when the tyrant shall be over- 
thrown by divine operation. That is, the Visions were composed 
well before the retaking of the temple and its purification, which 
latter event occurred Chislev (about December) 25, 165, accord- 
ing to the record just three years to the day after its profana- 

But the Visions contain what purport to be exact calculations 
of the time of devastation. In 7" = 12^ this period is to last for 
3^ years. In addition there is a more specific calculation by 
days, 8", ' 2300 evenings, mornings,' i.e., 2300 matin and vesper 
sacrifices = 1150 days {v. ad loc.)." Comm. have naturally at- 
tempted to relate these 11 50 days to the 3^^ years: but the lat- 
ter figure, at 360 days, = 1260, at 365 days, = 1278. On the 
other hand the 11 50 days would approximate the three years 
of the actual profanation ace. to i Mac, i.e., at 365 days to a 
year 11 50 = 3 years +55 days; at 360 days 11 50 = 3 years -|- 
70 days. A way out of attempting any solution is offered by 
Gunkel, Schopfung u. Chaos, 266-270, who regards the 3^^ in c. 7 
as a mystical, mythological number. But for a people which 
reckoned both days and years in sevens (in the popular calendar 
as well, because of the years of Release) there need have been 
nothing ultra-significant in the figure. We calculate by decades, 
and so speak of half-decades (decennium, quinquennium), and the 
comparative import of the latter would be that of brevity. Simi- 
larly seven years might imply a long or full period, 3^ an ab- 
breviated one. And the following historical basis for such an 
expectation may be observed as possible. If the high priest 
Onias' death be placed at 171 B.C. (s. Schiirer, 3, 195), about 
half a septennium would have elapsed by 168; and as the erro- 
neous chronology, followed by the author, would have termi- 
nated Jeremiah's 70 Weeks, understood as 490 years, three years 
later, it would have been natural to balance one half-septennium 

" Ace. to I Mac. I " the temple was profaned on Chislev 15 (168), but it is generally 
recognized that this is error for ' 25,' to be corrected in agreement with the state- 
ments of 4'-- ^ {cf. 2 Mac. 10') as to the exact three years. There appears now to be 
general agreement as to the dates 168, 165; s. Schiirer, GJV vol. i, §4, Meyer, 
Ursprmig, 2, i5g. 2og. Josephus, in stating that the profanation lasted for ^]^ years 
{B. J. iii, 1,1) makes accommodation with Dan. It is noteworthy that i Mac. made 
no such accommodation, a testimony to its chronological reliability. 

" The ' 1290 days' and ' 1335 days' of 12"-"' iv. ad loc.) are successive later inser- 
tions, due to the retardation of the term of 1150 days. 



against the other. Even if we allow that c. 7 is entirely distinct 
in thought and authorship from c. 8, we have still to regard the 
author of the latter as interpreting the 3>^-year datum of the 
former, qualifying it for some reason of his own, but there still 
remains the question of his 11 50 days. It can be equated neither 
with the 3^ years nor with the recorded three years of the 
profanation. The latter fact excludes the hypothesis of a vati- 
cinium post eventum, and indeed the whole bk. is evidently an- 
terior to the Mace, success. If post eventum, then 8^* must be 
regarded as a later addition, which no critic has claimed; but 
even then there would remain the question as to the term of the 
1 150 days, which in that case must have meant something. ^^ 

The result of this argumentation is that the 3^ years is a 
round figure, and the 11 50 days an exact calculation based on 
terms wholly obscure to us; neither of the calculations was ex- 
actly fulfilled, hence they both must have been devised ante 
eventum. In the rough the expectation was fulfilled— in briefer 
time indeed, in three years, shorter than the 1150 days by 55. 
This deduction may be satisfactory neither to the theologian 
nor to the historian. The latter naturally disowns the element 
of prediction in history, while the modern theologian deprecates 
it in prophecy (but cj. §20) and would admit it still less in our 
bk. However we may explain the fact, the majority of scholars 
who maintain the Mace, origin of cc. 7-12 regard them as com- 
posed before the triumph of the Maccabees in 165, and hence 
implicitly, if not explicitly, admit the historical fulfilment of 
their expectations. So Kuenen, Einleitung, §§88. 89 (as written 
before Judas' defeat of Lysias); Wellhausen, Isr. u.jild. Gesch.*, 
256, n. 2; Schiirer, 3, 256; Kamp., EB 1, 1013. And so almost 
all recent comm., exc. Behr. at 8", who agrees with Cornill for 
a post eventum date, as does Meyer, p. 186. And some recent 
comm., following Stuart, Zockler, al., find here 'genuine predic- 
tion' of the Mace, success, e.g., Dr., p. Ixvii, Charles, at 8^''. It 
may be remarked that predictions of seers have often had their 

" For the history of the interpretation of the 70 Weeks s. Note at end of c. g. 
Cornill, Die Siebzig Jahru'ocheti Daniels, 21-26, has made a very learned argument 
based on certain chronological determinations to the end of defining the 1150 days; 
assuming that the figure must be post eventum, he dates back its starting-point to 
Tishri (October) 168, when, he argues. Ant. issued his decree for the establishment 
of one religion. But as subsequent scholars have insisted, the starting-point is obvi- 
ously the actual profanation in Chislev, and Comill's position has met with no favor. 


effect on events, as in the case of Jeanne d'Arc; and so these 
forecasts of our bk. may have nerved the Mace, heroes to their 
illustrious triumph in 165 at the end of the ' 70 Weeks.' 

e. Losses and additions to the original book. 

For the Greek and Latin ecclesiastical tradition which regards 
the Apocryphal Additions as integral to the bk. and for modern 
views which would salvage some part of the episode between the 
prayer of Azarias and the Benedicite, s. §4. For criticism of the 
position held by a very few scholars that (g offers a fuller and 
better text and that its actually midrashic expansions should be 
honored, s. §11. 

In regard to supplements, the most extensive addition that 
has been alleged, namely, by vGall, otherwise a rigorous cham- 
pion of the unity of the bk., is the Prayer in c. 9; this opinion is 
rejected in the Comm. On the other hand, the Comm. follows 
Gunkel in excising 12"- 1- as later, although very early, attempts 
at rectifying the number of predicted Days; this criticism re- 
moves one of the greatest difficulties. 

Otherwise the changes adopted are few, many not being more 
than glosses of a few words or doublets, the latter an interesting 
phenomenon of early variation. Certain passages have been 
objected to as secondary 'joints,' but if the writer of the Stories 
used various traditional materials, these 'joints' may be attrib- 
uted to him as well as to another hand. In general the diction 
of the bk. is what German would call 'sprode' ('splay'), and 
we may not apply too fine a standard of logic and literature. 

The principal excisions from the text adopted or allowed as 
possible in the Comm., barring occasional single words, are 
(c/. the list of glosses, etc., accepted by Marti, p. x, and Charles, 
p. xxxi) : 

i^, vnSx r\>2. 8-, 'and I saw in the vision,' 

2'«, iVj; (?). 8», nsnSxi. 

228-29^ doublet, v.=' secondary. 8'-, last two verbs. 

242.43tt^ a doublet. 8'^'', a gloss of items. 

4-, 'and visions of my head.' qS?^ mrc"' rvinj. 

4'°, greater part doublet of v.'^. io=»- =', a doublet. 

6^ 01 ^h•y Sdi, doublet. ii'", a gloss. 

7*, a few words. ii'*, containing a poss. doublet. 

7", om. after 'I was seeing.' ■12"- '^ two successive glosses. 



In view of the peculiar genre of Apocalyptic its literary aspect 
cannot easily be distinguished from its spiritual content. To 
some extent this is also true of the Stories in Dan., for as in the 
Visions we find here the elements of intentional art and fiction. 
But the two must be treated as separate compositions of differ- 
ent authors and times. 

a. The Stories. 

These stories have hardly been sufficiently appreciated as lit- 
erature in the commentaries and the histories of Biblical letters; 
this in consequence of the devotion of almost all students to the 
polemic involved in the Higher Criticism of the bk. The writer 
would briefly express his growing admiration for these religious 
tales as examples of the story-telling art. Dan. has its ancestry 
in the classical Heb. literature, and also joins hands with an al- 
most perished story-literature, that of the Aramaic. The latter 
survives only in the mutilated Ahikar Romance and the Story 
of the Three Pages in i Esd., but these are testimony to a well- 
established and artistically developed branch of romantic moral- 
izing letters. The latter are Wisdom stories addressed to the 
more cultured ranks of society; those in Dan. are religious tales 
composed for the edification of the rank and file of the Jewish 
faithful. But they are admirable as examples of the short story; 
each one has its definite theme, and each is composed with nota- 
ble dramatic art. Also this art is not monotonous in the choice 
of subjects nor in the development of the plot. The most strik- 
ing and original of the compositions is the figure of the Image in 
c. 2, which deserves to be regarded as a notable creation, a 
veritable Frankenstein monster. The highly colored but som- 
bre scene of Belshazzar's Feast, c. 5, a notable historical ro- 
mance, comes next in power. Equally dramatic is the story -of 
the discipline of Nebuchadnezzar, c. 4; the fall of human ar- 
rogance has never been better sketched in a few strokes. The 
stories of the Three Confessors, c. 3, and Daniel in the Lions' 
Den, c. 6, are more strictly hagiological ; but they celebrate 
brave men of faith, and if the deus ex machina appears to solve 
the impasse of the right, we have to remember that from the 


Greek drama down a Providence has ever been invoked to ef- 
fect the triumph of the good, for every great drama is a moral 
theme and so ultimately religious, whether in the background 
looms a Nemesis or the Living God. Withal the depiction of 
the characters, the weak point in Oriental romance, is made 
briefly indeed but with accuracy. Daniel, humble in character 
but self-possessed and dignified before kings, the Confessors, 
more shadowy saints but immortal for their defiance to the 
king, 'If our God can save us . . . but if not' — the several dis- 
tinct characters of the three kings, all these stand forth as in- 
dividuals. Even the minor dramatis personcB, the royal oihcers 
in cc. I. 2, the Queen-Mother in c. 5, the artful conspirators in 
c. 6, are all appropriately limned. The stories are plainly, sim- 
ply, compactly told; yet they are not artless, rather inspired 
by a withal natural and cultivated art, knnstvoll therefore, and 
it is a misunderstanding of what constitutes religious literature 
when apologists and critics ignore or depreciate the literary form 
of these stories. 

In §20 the Theology of the Book has been treated. Actually 
of more pertinent importance is the religion of the bk., particu- 
larly for cc. 1-6. On the historical side we see the Jews of the 
Golah, no longer hanging their harps on the willows, but bravely 
taking their place in the world and proving themselves the 
equals and superiors of their Pagan associates, not by reason of 
their race or human excellences, but through their constancy of 
character founded on faith and trust in God. They exercise 
themselves naturally and dutifully in the rites of their religion, 
while on the negative side they abstain from 'the forbidden 
things,' whether these be contaminated foods or false objects of 
worship. The bk. was written, it is often said, for the encourage- 
ment of the community; but it is equally an expression of the 
life actually lived by Jews who were 'the salt of the earth' at 
the end of the Old Dispensation, the men who preserved for later 
ages the illumination of the Lawgivers and Prophets. While 
they guarded that treasure, often 'cabined, cribbed, confined,' 
as we may think, they had, like every responsible age of religion, 
their own contribution to make. They faced a problem far more 
difficult, complex, apparently hopeless, than confronted an 
Isaiah or Jeremiah. In the Hellenistic age God's world had be- 
come a vast, unified, articulated Cosmos, in the Johannine sense, 


tremendously interesting, intellectual, artistic, beautiful, but also 
cruel and beastly, religious in the sense of superstitious, or else 
sceptical and atheistic, godless in sum. Supermen ramped over 
the stage, self-styled gods whom nations did worship to; the 
only worldly hope of escape from any one of these was in the 
usurpation of another like him. To this condition our bk. made 
answer, but not by a new theology; the bk. is founded four- 
square on the centuries-old belief that ' God is king, be the earth 
never so unquiet.' But its contribution to religion lies in its 
formulation of faith 'in the Kingdom of God,' that men should 
'know that the Highest rules in the kingdom of men,' 422(19).! 
To this there is added the corollary, arising from the logic of faith 
rather than of intellect, of God's necessary vindication of his 
cause in the world. This may take place in the way of human 
catastrophes, as in the judgments upon Nebuchadnezzar and 
Belshazzar. Or else the godlessness of the world drives the faith 
and patience of the saints to the breaking-point, and the tran- 
scendental action of God is demanded; this theme appears in 
c. 2, where the successive kingdoms of the world are represented 
as breaking down in a moment before the 'Stone cut without 
hands.' In this scene there is the kernel of the Apocalyptic of 
the later chapters, the reason why an apocalyptic series could 
be composed as a supplement to the Stories. 

h. The Visions. 

Literary appreciation of this material is more difficult. ^ The 
vision in c. 7 rises to a picturesque grandeur, due to the assimi- 
lation of ancient mythical elements in part, which however are 
freely and originally handled. The following visions are prosaic 
and rather arid, broken only by the more lively personal inter- 
ludes of the Prayer in c. 9 and the overwhelming vision to the 
seer in c. 10, along with the concluding word of comfort at the 
end of c. 12. Indeed the symbolical disappears in the midst of 
the vision in c. 8, and after that there are only spoken oracles. 

1 CJ. Driver's excellent review of this theme, pp. Ixxxv-xc. The 'ethical character' 
of Apocalyptic is presented by Charles, pp. xvi-xix, but Dan. is religious primarily 
rather than ethical. 

^ For literature s. §20, njte i, to which should be added Gunkel's treatment of 
the mythological elements i:i Apocalyptic, and particularly in Dan. 7, Schopfung u. 
Chaos, 323-335- 

§22B. THE VISIONS 103 

We feel an increasing ' De prof undis ' motif in these visions : they 
are the reflex of the bitter stress of the times and move with a 
heavy-footed indignation. On the one hand, there is the horror 
of things as they are, with no hope in the world as it is; on the 
other, a grim determination of faith that God will interfere. 
And in this respect the faith was prophetic and the Religion 
was saved, although not in the terms of the prediction, as is 
always the case with both Prophecy and Apocalyptic. 

There is a problem in these Visions which has concerned all 
students of Apocalyptic. How far have we in them genuine 
vision, how much, if not all, is artificial? Answer is obtained 
largely according to the various attitudes of students toward 
theological inspiration. C. 7 may be, as claimed by many, a 
learned composite of mythological motifs; c. 11, according to 
Bousset and others, smacks of the student's study with its cor- 
rect historical sequence. The present writer acknowledges that 
there is a predominant element of the intellectual and of the arti- 
ficial in a certain sense; there is deliberate use of the facts of 
historical knowledge and of elaborated symbols. But this is art 
of the same kind as appears in Dante or in Bunyan's Pilgrim's 
Progre:;s ; it is primarily literary art. And this includes the arti- 
fice of ascribing the visions to an ancient Daniel, in which respect 
the Visions follow the Stories and an ancient tradition of that 
kind of literature.^ In this characteristic of artistic creation 
composed for written Hterature ('the Book,' 12''), Apocalyptic 
differs from the elder Prophecy, which was oral and more spon- 
taneous, only subsequently and in part committed to writing. 
Distinctly literary Prophecy appears first in Ezekiel, himself an 
apocalyptist; in the Second Isaiah we have a litterateur's compo- 
sition, and this technically literary characteristic appears in all 
the subsequent Prophets. 

On the other hand, the intensity and gravity of the theme 
produced a mental exaltation which at least by the composer 
was interpreted as true ecstasy or vision. He did not distinguish 
between his own materials and art and the illumination which 
came to him in the process of absorption in the quest of revela- 

' Charles has again and again insisted that this artifice was necessary in order to 
procure a hearing after the Prophetic Canon was closed; and Bousset is inclined to 
admit this motive (OJfenbarung, 14). At the same time the literary mode of anonym- 
ity and then pseudonymity had long ago set in. Cf. §19, g. 


tion. One feels a genuineness, subjectively speaking, in the vi- 
sions of the Apocalypse and 2 Esdras, even as in Paul's ascent 
to the third heaven; and the same impression is given by the 
record of the visionary phenomenon in c. 10. In all these three 
bks. there is discovered a genuine personal touch which appears 
to reveal actual spiritual experience. At 10^ we learn of the 
practice of prayer and self-mortification in order to obtain illu- 
mination even as in 2 Esd. ; and this spiritual discipline along 
with the resultant experiences has ever been native to the mys- 
tic's life. Apocalyptic will never be sympathetically appreciated 
until we bring it under the category of the poet and the seer. 
Psychologically literary and religious inspiration have very much 
in common, and the intellectual and artistic elements may not 
be discounted in religious inspiration.^ Our modern rationalism 
does not easily fancy Apocalyptic, but before casting it aside 
we should make an honest effort to appreciate it as genuine lit- 
erature and as genuine religion. To be sure, a criticism that 
first of all will appreciate, will reserve to itself the right of dis- 
crimination; it will distinguish between the higher and the lower, 
the true and the false, for it must be borne in mind that mystical 
absorption in seeking the truth and the will of the Divine easily 
involves illusion. As Prophecy produced its exaggerations until 
at last the whole order of the Prophets fell into disrepute, so 
Apocalyptic had its rise and fall. But it is not just to condemn 
any one book for the faults of all the others. Dan. is the classical 
apocalypse of the O.T.; with all its peculiar literary art and its 
mystical practice of religion, it remains true to Judaism, and, 
more than this, it develops the latter legitimately in translating 
it into transcendental terms. Similarly the Church adopted only 
one of the products of its many prophets into its Canon, the 
Apocalypse of John. One such book in each Canon is sufficient, 
perhaps, but the two deserve their place in the proportions of the 
True Religion. Each visualized for its generation, in days of 
greatest stress for believers, the Kingdom of God as above all 
and to come on earth, and inspired a faith and comfort that was 
not disappointed. 

■• See the admirable Presidential Address by Prof. C. R. Bowen in JBL 1925, i JJ., 
'Why Eschatology ? ' On the literary characteristic of Apocalyptic see the writer's 
paper, The Education of the Seer of the Apocalypse, to appear in JBL 1926. 



In the Comm. at the end of cc. 2, 9, 11 are given sketches of 
the history of exegesis of certain outstanding themes of the bk. ; 
the reader is directed thither for more expHcit statement. The 
following is a summary review.^ 

For early Jewish interpretation we are thrown back upon the 
N.T. and Josephus, Philo omitting all ref. to the bk. Jos. speaks 
of Dan. in the highest terms as one of " the greatest of the Proph- 
ets ,. . for he not only prophesied of future events, as did 
other prophets, but he also determined the time of their accom- 
plishment" {A J X, II, 7): and so 'Dan. the prophet,' Mt. 24^^ 
(but not in the parallel Mk. 13^). Jos. interpreted the Fourth 
Kingdom as of Rome (although finding Ant. in the little horn 
of c. 8), but 'thought it not proper to relate the meaning of the 
Stone,' doubtless fearing offence to Rome, ib. and 10, 4. Policy 
thus kept him from expounding the bk. more fully, to our loss. 

In the Talmud Dan. is spoken of as weightier than 'all the 
wise men of the peoples,' Yoma 77a. For Talmudic and other 
Rabb. references see Hamburger, RE i, 224: in them he is pre- 
sented in the highest terms as a saint and an example, but the 
allusions are of personal, not theological interest. The Mediaeval 
Jewish opinion appears to have been less favorable to Dan., this 
on the score of the technical distinction of the bk. from the 
'Prophets,' and also probably because of the Messianic inter- 
pretation given to it by the Church. Both Maimonides, d. 1204 
(Moreh Nebochim, 2, 41), and Kimhi, d. 1240 (Pref. to the Pss.),^ 
distinguished between Prophecy and the Holy Spirit, valuing 
the former as far higher because it dispossessed the recipient of 
his natural faculties, while the latter is but an illumination, and 
Kimhi notes that Dan. was inferior to Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the 
other Prophets in that he could not 'maintain strength' (10^) 
when he awoke from his dreams. 

The great Jewish commentators all interpreted the bk.: 
Saadia, 892-941; Jephet, c. 1000; 'Rashi' (Solomon b. Isaac), 

' C/. esp. Bcrtholdt, pp. 156-162; Rosenmiiller, pp. 38-51; Zockler, Prcf., §§5. 12, 
with the fullest bibliography; and the admirable presentation in briei by Behrmann, 
pp. xliv-xlix. Knabenbauer's survey, pp. 57-64, is valuable for its inclusion o:" the 
medix-val and later Catholic literature. The Bibliographies in Wilson and Bout- 
flower are useful for presentation of recent archaeological discussion. 

' See C. B. Michaelis, pp. 33 JJ. 


d. 1 105; Aben Ezra (Abraham b. Meir b. Ezra; s. JE s.v. 'Ibn 
Ezra'),d. 1 167; Isaac Abrabanel, d. 1508 (first printed ed. 1497); 
Joseph b. Yahya, c. 1559. Of these Saadia's comm. has not yet 
been pubHshed. The ' Saadia' who accompanies Rashi and Aben 
Ezra since the Bomberg and Buxtorf Bibles (the texts followed 
in this Comm. are those in Mikraoth Gedoloth) has long been 
recognized as a much later composition and can only be cited as 
Pseudo-Saadia; but Aben Ezra frequently quotes Saadia's comm. 
and Jephet polemicizes against it.^ In the later Jewish exegesis 
there appears to have been a reaction toward the Mess, inter- 
pretation of Dan. (s. Note, end of c. 9). Of this development 
Abrabanel is an example in his work on Dan., on which remarks 
L. Ginzberg, JE i, 128: "He controverts both the Christian 
exegesis and the Jewish rationalism. ... In opposition to the 
Talmud and all later rabbinic tradition he counts Dan. among 
the prophets — but therein only agreeing with the current Chris- 
tian interpretation. He is impelled to this by the fact that 
Daniel furnishes the foundation for his Mess, theory." Jephet 
is valuable as representing the Karaite exegesis; his comm. has 
been published in the Arab, with Eng. tr. by Margoliouth, 1889. 
His observations are often acute and exhibit an ancient line of 
tradition; but cf. Margoliouth's judgment upon him as a com- 
mentator, p. viii. In the Comm. constant use has been made of 
Jephet, Rashi, Aben Ezra, with reference to Pseudo-Saadia.* 
In addition to the commentators the Jewish lexicographers are 
valuable: the elemental work of Ibn Janah, c. 1050 (which has 
been consulted for the Heb. in the Comm.), and the Artich of 
Nathan b. Yechiel of the 12th cent., which with the labors of 
Elias Levita lies at the base of subsequent lexicography.^ The 
immense debt of the Prot. commentation and vernacular Bibles 
to the Jewish commentaries is evident at every step in the 
exegesis of Dan. 

^ On Saadia's comm. on Dan. s. Malter, Saadia Gaon, 1921, 325/., and for Pseudo- 
Saadia H. Spiegel, Saadia al-Fajjumi's arab. Danielversion, 1906, 13/., dating it, at 
end of the 12th cent, as of North African origin. For Saadia's Arab. tr. of Dan. s. 
§10, e. 

* Rashi was translated by Breithaupt, 1713, and b. Yahya by I'Empereur, 1663 
(the latter comm. I have not seen). A F. Galle has published selections from the 
comm. of 'Saadia, Aben-Ezra, Rashi, etc.,' iqoo, the 'Saadia' being the late commen- 
tary. Bibliography of other later Jewish comm. is given by Rosenmiiller, pp. 38-40. 

' The text of Ibn Janah's Book of Hcb. Roots followed is that by A. Neubauer, 
1875. The Aruch complelum has been published by A. Kohut, 1878 seq. 


In the Church the first commentator was Hippolytus of Rome, 
whose 'On Daniel/ written c. 202 a.d., has been pubhshed in full 
by Bonwetsch and Achelis; s. §10, /, §12, a.^ The work is ar- 
dently hortatory, expectant of the Parousia, but its historical 
exegesis is sane and valuable. Origen's comm. has been lost 
but for 'a brief extract of his notes' (Salmon, DCB 4, 11). The 
Gr. tradition was carried on by Chrysostom (in homiletic man- 
ner), Polychronius the brother of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and 
Theodoret, the two latter representing the Antiochian school of 
exegesis. Polychronius' work, preserved only fragmentarily,^ is, 
on account of its objective, historical point of view, the most 
fascinating of all the Patristic literature on Dan. Hipp., Polych. 
and Theodt. have been particularly consulted for this Comm. 
The Syriac-speaking Church is represented by its great Father, 
Aphrem (Ephrem, Ephraim) of the 4th cent., whose comm. on 
Dan. is a notable work. A commentary by Theodore of Mop- 
suestia, also translated into Syr., is now lost; s. DCB 4, 940; 
Baumstark, Gesch. d. syr. Lit., 103. 

The prince of the commentators is Jerome. His work gains in 
value as it is primarily an apology against the Neo-Platonic 
Porphyry's attack upon the historicity of Dan., claiming that it 
was Maccabaean. This polemic purpose appears in the opening 
words of the Pref. to the comm.* Jerome has done the service 
of preserving Porphyry's argument in very full form, often in 
citation, and the polemic has caused him to compose a very 
careful work. His comm. is intrinsically valuable for its con- 
stant dependence upon the tradition of the rabbis under whom 
he studied, and the work is a monument to the earliest stages of 
Jewish exegesis, as appears from its frequent agreement with the 
Mediaeval representatives of the latter. Of Porphyry's work we 
know nothing further. His position as to the date of Dan. has 
been vindicated by most of modern scholarship. 

Of the Mediaeval commentaries may be noticed those of Al- 
bertus Magnus and Nicolas de Lyra. The In Danielem postillae 

' See §12, n. 2, for monographs on Hipp, as commentator. 

' Published by A. Mai in vol. i of his Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, 1825. Mai 
also adds a catena of annotations {Commcnlarii variorum) on Dan. by other Gr. 
writers, Ammonius, Apollinaris, ct al. 

• He then notes that Eusebius, .Xpollinaris, Methodius had written apologies 
against this attack of Porphyry's, extracts Irom which are preservedonly in Mai's 
catena, s. note above. 


attributed to Thomas Aquinas (Paris, 1640) is not recognized as 
genuine by the editor of the sumptuous Leonine edition, Rome, 
1882 seq. ; s. vol. i, p. xcii. Of the Roman Cathohc commenta- 
tors after the Reformation many are cited in Pole's Synopsis 
criticoruni, e.g., Pereira, Maldonat; for the 17th and i8th cen- 
turies, e.g., Sanctius, Cornelius a Lapide and Calmet; we note 
also the merits of de Maitres and Bianchini, s. §10, a (i). Re- 
cent Roman commentators of importance are d'Envieu, 1888- 
1891, and Knabenbauer, 1891. The former work, in three vols., 
is an extremely apologetic and polemic treatment as against 
radical criticism. 

The Protestant Reformation produced a flood of learned anno- 
tations and commentaries upon Dan. as upon all the Scriptures. 
The writer has depended for his knowledge of these great schol- 
ars upon the Critici sacri, London, 1660, and Pole's Synopsis 
criticorum. They include, besides Luther, whose great contribu- 
tion was his Bible translation, such names as Calvin, who dedi- 
cated characteristically brilliant lectures to Dan., S. Miinster 
(whose influence on the English Version was very great), Geier, 
the illustrious Grotius (in some respects the father of the mod- 
ern interpretation of Dan., and the first to introduce at length 
the parallels from Classical letters). For the i8th cent, may be 
particularly noticed C. B. Michaelis, Wm. Lowth and Venema, 
along with the scholarly apparatus of J. D. Michaelis in his ed. 
of the Heb. Bible. 

Meanwhile a line of radical interpretation had started in the 
17th and early i8th centuries, denying in part or in whole the 
authenticity of the bk. and its traditional age. The partial criti- 
cisms of Spinoza and Sir Isaac Newton (s. §21, a) were devel- 
oped by Marsham, Collins, Corrodi and others in the i8th cent. 
(s. Note at end of c. 9, §5) and precipitated the fuUy formulated 
theory of the late, pseudepigraphic character of the whole book, 
presented by Eichhorn, the father of modern Biblical Introduc- 
tion, and by Bertholdt (1806), the first commentator at length 
on these lines. Porphyry now came into his own. Bertholdt was 
followed, but with tempering of his rationalism and extrava- 
gances, by RosenmiiUer (1832), von Lengerke (1835), Maurer 
(1838), Hitzig (1850 — indulging in Persian origins), Ewald 
(1868). This radical position was however warmly contested, 
with the support of many doughty theologians, as Hengstenberg 


(1831), C. H. Auberlen (1854), Pusey (1864), Havernick (1832 — 
he and von Lengerke are rich in allusions to Classical literature) ; 
Stuart of Andover (1850 — the first American philological com- 
mentary on Dan., an exemplary work); Keil (1867 — the extreme 
of the apologetic position); Kliefoth, Kranichfeld (both 1868 — 
excellent commentaries); Zockler (1870 — a very sound commen- 
tary, with full bibliography, and the latest Protestant work with 
exposition of the elder interpretations). 

In the '8o's a fresh stimulus was given to the study of Dan. in 
its philological phase by Kautzsch's Grammar, and especially 
on the archaeological side by the Assyriological discoveries. But 
most of the formal comm. (exceptions noted §19, n. i) accept 
the radical position: Meinhold (1899); Bevan (1892 — admirable 
for philological acumen and freshness); Behrmann (1894 — with 
very independent criticism); the American Prince (1899 — stress- 
ing the Assyriological point of view); Driver (1900 — the fullest 
of recent commentaries, only limited as based on the Eng. text) ; 
Marti (1901 — all too brief) ; Charles (in the New-Century Bible) ; 
also A. Lambert (a brief Heb. comm.). To these should be 
added the series of select notes on the bk. by Graetz, 1871; 
Torrey, 1909 and 1923 (s. Bibliography); and Ehrlich in his 
Randglossen, 1914. For critical presentation of the text Kamp- 
hausen in Haupt's SBOT, 1896, and Lohr in Kittel's Bible, 1906, 
should be consulted : the former with admirably cautious treat- 
ment, the latter far more radical, in general following Marti's 

Archseology has, however, inspired a considerable revival of 
the defence of the authenticity of the bk., with many extensive 
monographs, e.g., those of Wright, Wilson and Boutflower, 
which have been noticed at length in §19 (for literature see there, 
note i); and that Section exhibits the reaction toward recogni- 
tion of a far greater amount of historical tradition in the bk. than 
the elder criticism had allowed — a position maintained in this 




(i) 1. 2. The deportation to Babylon. (2) 3-7. The educa- 
tion of Daniel and his three companions in the Chaldaean sci- 
ences. (3) 8-17. Their piety. (4) 18-21. Their singular wis- 
dom approved by Nebuchadnezzar. 

1. 2. With this datum of a reduction of Jerusalem by Neb. in 
the 3d year of Jehoiakim and the deportation of the latter and 
his court to Babylon, the narrator as briefly as possible links 
up his story with traditional events of the last days of the 
national life. There is no historical corroboration of such an 
event in the 3d year of Jehoiakim, at which date indeed Neb. 
could only be called 'King' byprolepsis. Our prime authority, 
2 Ki. 23^^-24^, assigns an ii-year reign to Jeh., recording that 
'Neb. king of Bab. came up and Jeh. became his servant three 
years; then he turned and rebelled against him'; and the Lord 
sent against him bands of Chaldaeans, Syrians, Moabites, Am- 
monites, to destroy Judah. But Jeh. did not survive the catas- 
trophe; 'he slept with his fathers.' His son Jehoiachin capitu- 
lated to Neb. in person after a siege, having reigned three 
months. There ensued the despoliation of the temple and the 
deportation of the royal family and upper classes to Babylon. 
Also Jeremiah informs us with particular fulness about this 
period. The 4th year of Jeh. is ec^uated with the ist year of 
Neb., 26^ cf. 46-, ace. to which the latter's defeat of Necho at 
Karkemish occurred in the 4th year; and c. 36 details the his- 
tory of the writing and the fate of the first edition of the bk. 
for the 4th and 5th years, while the elegy on Jeh. in c. 22 knows 
of no such catastrophe happening in that king's reign. But a 
further development of the history appears in 2 Ch. 36^"*, viz., 
that, without definition of date, Neb. came up against Jeh. and 
bound him in brass fetters 'to bring him to Bab.'; for this the 
variant and probably earlier text of i Esd. i^* reads 'and led 
him to Bab.,' i.e., in3''^T'1 for 'l3''^n^. As was recognized by 
8 "3 


vLeng. and is maintained by most recent comm., this datum of 
Ch. has been combined with the 'three years' of Jeh.'s submis- 
sion to Neb. in 2 Ki. 24^; ergo his captivity happened at the end 
of the 3-year term. This gradual midrashic expansion ignores 
the valuable data of Jer. The close dependence of Dan. upon 
Ch. appears in the almost exact equivalence of our v.^ with 
2 Ch. 36^ 'Neb. also carried some of the vessels of the house 
of the Lord to Bab., and put them in his temple at Bab.,' an 
identity which has actually affected the subsequent history of 
the text of Dan. and the Grr. (v. inf.). A rational motive for 
the shoving back of the date of the captivity to Jeh.'s 3d year 
may be found in the probable desire to obtain the fulfilment of 
the exact 70 years of the Exile, 2 Ch. 36" = Jer. 25^1 '•; so 
Curtis, Chron., ad loc, cf. Mein. But exact calculations are not 
to be attributed to our author but to tradition. 

Support of this captivity of the 3d year has been claimed from 
Gr. sources; e.g., by Heng., Authentie, S^ff-, ^nd so modern apol- 
ogists, Wright, Dan. and His Prophecies, c. 3, §1, Wilson, 
Skidies, c. 4. One unnoticed Jewish legendary parallel is found 
in Polyhistor, cited by Eus., Praep. ev., xi, 39 (from the Jewish 
historian Eupolemus, s. Freudenthal, Alex. Polyhistor, 16); after 
teUing that King Jonachim had set up a golden image of Baal, 
the extract narrates how Neb. made a victorious campaign 
through Palestine, captured Jerusalem, took Jonachim alive, and 
carried off to Babylon the gold in the temple along with silver 
and bronze; this 'Jonachim' appears to be Johoiakim, but there 
is possible confusion with Jehoiachin. More important is the 
testimony of Berossus as cited by Jos., AJ x, 11, i = C. Ap., i, 
19: Neb. was ordered by his father to chastise the rebellious 
satraps of Egj'pt, Syria and Phoenicia, which task he completed, 
annexing these lands to Babylonia (an anachronism indeed as 
far as Egypt is concerned). Then hearing of his father's de- 
cease, he set out on a forced march across the desert to receive 
the crown, and ordered the captives, Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians 
and Egyptians, to be sent on, and these he colonized in Baby- 
lonia. This statement is arranged anachronistically by Jos., 
who makes it follow another extract from Berossus telling of 
Neb.'s capture of Jerusalem and its destruction by fire, i.e., the 
event of 586. But in the former passage there is no reference 
to a capture of Jerusalem or captivity of Jehoiakim. Operations 


of Neb. in Syria-Palestine in the 4th year may correspond with 
the datum of Chaldaean and other troops that attacked Judah 
ace. to 2 Ki. 24'. Jos. by no means draws the conclusions of 
modern apologists. Ace. to AJ x, 6, i, after the battle of Kar- 
kemish Neb. "took all Syria as far as Pelusium except Judsea." 
In the same chap. Jos. records that later, at the end of Jeh.'s 
reign. Neb. came against the latter, took Jerusalem, slew Jeh., 
and had his body cast outside of the walls (itself a perversion 
of history, dependent upon 'the burial of an ass' that was to 
be Jeh.'s fate ace. to Jer. 22). As an example of Jos.'s absolute 
unreliabiUty at times it may be noted that he makes Dan. and 
his friends captives of the captivity of 586, x, 10, i, deliberately 
ignoring the datum of Dan. that they were taken captive in 606; 
i.e., Jos. is no witness for apologetic on this point. 

Commentators have been ever embarrassed over this 3d year. 
Ra. makes the 3d year the last of the three years of revolt, Jeh. 
'dying under Neb.'s hand'; and so AEz., PsSa., Jeph. The 
Christian tradition following the unfortunate identification by 
(^ of the names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin as 'IcoaKei/x (2 Ki, 
23^^24) blundered through the royal succession of this age. 
Mt. ii°f- identifies the two under 'lexovLa<i^ despite Jerome's 
argument against Porphyry that two kings are required here. 
Hipp., i, 2, §§3. 6, is in utter confusion as to the series of kings 
and their names; in §6 he identifies the three years with the 
three months' reign of Jehoiachin. Jer. gives to both kings the 
one and the same name loacim, but is obscure as to his deduc- 
tions. The early Prot. comm. were equally troubled, proposing 
many of the exegetical devices since attempted; e.g., Grot, sug- 
gested that eight years of Jeh.'s reign were discounted because 
his captive brother Jehoahaz was still alive for that term. The 
Cath. Maid, and the Prot. CBMich. fall back upon the Jewish 
identification of the three years with the term of Jeh.'s revolt. 
Heng. maintained the unvarnished credibility of the datum, 
followed by many; their arguments are most completely stated 
by Klief., pp. 49-69, and Keil, pp. 46-56. Of the points made 
may be noted: Berossus' statement (made to imply a reduction 
of Jerusalem); a prolepsis in Neb.'s title as king (cf. Wibon, 
c. 5); denial that S3 means 'arrived at' but rather 'started to 
go' (so Kran., Keil, Knab., as particularly correct if the writer 
were in Babylon); insistence that Jeh. was only taken prisoner, 


not removed to Bab. All other recent comm. reject the his- 
toricity of the datum, with exception of Behr., who holds to the 
taking of Jerusalem on Berossus' testimony without further 
elaboration. All secular historians, Rawlinson, Meyer, Winck- 
ler, Rogers, ignore or condemn the datum. For the Winckler 
theory that Jeh.'s 3d and 4th years may have coincided in part 
with Neb.'s ist year s. the chronological table given by Dr., 
p. xlix. 

In V.2 the narrator assumes the capture of the city and pro- 
ceeds to detail its two chief consequences for the subsequent 
history: the captivity of the Jewish king, which prepares us for 
the appearance of youths 'of the royal family,' v.*, and the 
desecration of the sacred vessels by Belshazzar, c. 5; however, 
the V. is but a duplicate of 2 Ch. 36^ ^■. But the clumsy condition 
of the V. in ^ = has been recognized by all comm. If the 
accusative in 'he brought them' refers both to the king and the 
vessels, there arises the absurdity that the captives were brought 
into the king's temple; if it refers to the vessels alone (so (^ 
avrd^ U ea), then there follows the repetition that they were 
'brought into the treasure-house of his god.' But orig. (g reveals 
an elder condition of text than 1^, which relieves the problem. 
On Hexaplaric testimony 'the house of his god' in v.* was not 
read by (^ (s. Note); the Hexaplaric insertion in (S is taken 
bodily from 0, producing an awkwardness in the text as revised. 
The insertion of 'in the house of his god' in our ^ was prob. 
due to the interpretation of 'them' as neuter, with the VSS, 
along with reminiscence of 2 Ch. 36^, 'and he put them in his 
temple in Bab.' This induction from (^ agrees with the elision 
of the phrase by Dr., Mar., Lohr, Ehr., Cha. Pr. (and so Maid.) 
preserves the text by supposing that the questionable phrase 
refers to a triumphal presentation in the temple; but this lux- 
urious note is out of place. Behr. without any textual authority 
would delete the whole of v.''. Hitz., Mein. interpret VH^S iT'i 
as 'the land of his god,' and cjt. Hos. 8^, 9'^ While the Jewish 
comm. admitted the captivity of Jehoiakim and against the 
VSS correctly regarded the obj. as including the captives, some 
of the apologetic school of the 19th cent., e.g., Hav., Keil, Zock. 
(so also Rosen., vLeng.), confined the obj. to the vessels alone 
so as to avoid the deportation of Jeh. to Bab. There still remains 
a certain inconcinnity; 'them' must imply Jeh. and his family 

l'-' 117 

and entourage; but the implication is so clear that it is not nec- 
essary with Ew., Ehr., to suppose that some phrase expressing 
the large circle has fallen out. 

The initial sentence in v.^, 'the Lord (Adonai, on which s. 
Note) gave into his hands' is a statement of the divine Provi- 
dence ordering the tragedy. 'The house of God' stands in the 
Chronicler (cf. inf. 5^) for the earlier 'house of Yhwh.' 'Shinar' 
is archaizing, despite Mar., as it is in Is. 11", Zech. 5"; it is well 
chosen as denoting the land of the arch-rebel Nimrod, Gen. iqI", 
and of the Tower of Babel, which is the antithesis of the theme 
of Dan. In v.*' the disposition of the sacred vessels is briefly 
recorded; they were placed in the treasure-house of Neb.'s god. 
The sing. mng. of D''^^^< is to be preferred with ^ H; but (S 
understood it as pi. with the nice word eldcoXetov. The former 
view is supported by 4^ where ' Belteshazzar ' is interpreted by 
Neb. as 'according to the name of my god,' obviously, Bel, cf. 
Bel and the Dragon, v.^ The later Paganism was henotheistic. 
□TI^X JT^J means 'god-house,' so Ju. 1 7 ^, and either ' Gotteshaus ' 
or ' Gotterhaus.' Every temple had its treasure-chamber, the 
sacred things of even a conquered religion being still holy; hence 
Belsh.'s act in c. 5 was a sacrilege even to Pagan eyes. Cf. the 
similar account of the deposit of these vessels in 2 Ch. 36^, Ezr. 
5'*. The plundering of these stores of booty was a constant aim 
of conquerors. Aph. Syr.'s view, followed by Theodt., Hav., al., 
that Neb. desired to honor the vessels of God by bringing them 
into the presence of his gods is a vagary, answered for the Jewish 
mind by Ra.: he brought them there 'to praise his false gods.' 

1. njiya] For the gen. construction s. GK §134, o. — vh'y] Many 
MSS defective. — mDSn] A formation of ancient Heb. usage, e.g., Nu. 24', 
I Sa. 20", I Ki. 2", along with ^}^'0'?, also moSni?, which comes to 
predominate under Aram, influence in the Hagiographa and NHeb. 
For the vocal swa h cf. nn^;', but nnna i Sa. 20'". The term is not 
otiose with the following 'king,' as <8 feels; it refers to the royal era, the 
first year of which began in Assyria and Babylonia with the first New 
Year's day after the accession. — no] As noted above, some comm. in- 
sist that this vb. can mean the inception of the action; e.g., Gen. 45", 
Jon. i^ But it seems absurd to hold that this very curt passage made a 
distinction between the moments of starting and arrival. — ■lXNJ^^nJ] 
Otherwise in Dan. li-jiDnj, e.g., 3', or nxj-i33j, e.g., i"; ill desired 
to use the fullest spelling at the first occurrence of the word. The 


correct form, li'smDO:, is found only in Ezc. and sections of Jer. 
(also here in Ken. 245), strangely enough failing here, if Dan. be a con- 
temporary document. For the Gr. forms s. BDB, GB, and Schrader, 
ZPT 1881, 6igff.; the forms with -w- for -r- are found only in the Jewish 
tradition (Berossus in Eus. has -n-, but after the Eusebian spelling). 
For the frequent division of the word into two parts in many Mss, so 
also here, ixnj nDi3j, see Elias Levita, Masorclh ha-masoreth, ed. 
Ginsburg, p. 210, Ginsburg, Int., 200 ff. — "^23] For ^^ before a liquid in 
place of -^ cf. SnoV '^^?• ■>?"!, etc. — dSs'it'] M insists on this 
Kre perpehium except in the Aram, sections, where aSa'n^. — ixm] Rt. 
lis: s. GK §72, t. — 2. ■>jin] Many mss nin>, Ken. 245 •'Jin mn\ Jahn 
restores here mn^, but, except in the Prayer, c. 9 and its introduc- 
tion v.^, the bk. always uses Din':'Nn, and presumably this was read 
originally here. But the identification of the deity was required and 
this was fixed by the Kre "'Jin, which then entered into the text. Simi- 
lar indifference as between mni and D^^'^N appears in later Jewish 
literature, e.g., the Targums, where the abbreviation of nin^ is used 
for the Bibl. D^nSx; so also in BSira, cf. the equivalents for xuptos in 
Smend's Index. — r^-ipti] nxp = kasawat (s. Bev., GK §95, n, and other 
reff. in GB), cf. np, nn {vs. BDB to be listed under rt. njj); = He- 
braized nn'i"', e.g. 1 Ki. 6^^, and parallel to nsp, between which and this 
word confusion occurs (s. GB s.vv.). The word is partitive here (other- 
wise at v.^, as at Neh. 7'°, and like nxii i Ki. 12" (s. Burney, ad loc), 
and has the same use in 2^ (Aram.). The partitive use of r^'ip^a is com- 
mon in the Talmud, s. Jastrow, s.v. The corresponding word in 2 Ch. 
36' is the simple p. — -\';yz^\ The earlier identification with mat sumiri, 
'land of Sumer,' South Babylonia (so e.g., Pr.) is now largely doubted; 
s. GB s.v. But to the Jews it meant Babylonia, as <& reads here and 
Zech. s". The Jewish terms for Babylonia are 'land of Babel,' Jer. si'", 
'land of Chaldees,' Eze. 12", or 'Chaldsa' (anno), Is. 48=0.— vnSx no] 
It has been observed above that this phrase was not in orig. (& nor 
probably in orig. ^. Origen interpolated from dq olxov xou Osou y.. 
TK axeuT); in (S*^, but not in <&^; there is prefixed to this the doublet gloss 
from zlq Y^v Ilevaap. Note how the interpolation disturbs the syntax 
of <&. ai'^DH PNi was indeed in 05's Heb. text, but it was omitted as 
the previous object 'them' was understood by (& to refer to the vessels. 
As it stands, rnSx ri:i is locative. If the rdg. of B Q* owou be accepted 
as 0's, then Shinar was regarded by as the name of the temple; but all 
other representatives of have otxov, expanded in Hexapl. texts into 
et<; (ttov) oty.ov. — TiiN P"'3] Such a depositary in the temple at Jerusalem, 
I Ki. 7*'; also read isi.v for ixv at Zech. 13'. The term = Akk. bit nisirti. 
For derivations of ixin s. GB; but poss. nusdr>u{n)sdr>d?dr. Strangely 
enough A Q* 23 om. OTjaaupou — by haplog. with Ocou auxou .? — OS's 

I^'^ 119 

(ixTjpefffaxo otuxa Iv t(7) eJSwXefw auxou = i Esd. 2', a proof of the identity 
of the translator. 

3-7. The education of the youths. 3. The king orders 'his 
Chief Eunuch' to introduce into the court certain high-born 
youths of the Jewish captives in order to educate them as royal 
pages, in Hne for such promotion as their abiUties might deserve. 
Throughout history this has been the honorable destiny of aris- 
tocratic captives; it was doubtless the lot of the family of 
Jehoiachin, 2 Ki. 25"^-, as evidenced in the favor shown to 
Zerubbabel, whom i Esd. 3^ treats as similarly a royal page, 
veavLCTKOf^ even as the Grr. here at v.* designate these young 
men. The Chief Eunuch is simply the majordomo; it is not 
necessary to draw the conclusion that the youths were made 
eunuchs, as Jos. hints: "he made some of them eunuchs," nor 
to combine the ref., after Theodt., with the alleged fulfilment of 
Is. 39^ The Pers. heir apparent was brought up by eunuchs; s. 
art. by A. V. W. Jackson, cited below at v.^ But the notion in 
Jos.'s mind had its corroboration in many cases, e.g., without 
doubt, Nehemiah; cf. the condition represented by Is. 56^^- 
Jewish tradition agreed with Jos., as Jer. indicates, and was con- 
tinued in Targ. Est. 4^ where the eunuch Hatak is identified 
with Dan., larchi ad loc, Epiph., De vita proph., x (these pas- 
sages cited by vLeng., p. xcvii). But AEz. denies that the three 
youths were eunuchs: they were not to stand before women 
but before the king, while that condition would be a blemish 
contradicting v."*, involving a diminution of mental ability. The 
understanding of v.*^ depends upon the number and kinds of 
classes to be distinguished. (& and 0, each with an exegetical 
plus making the first class definitely of the Jewish captivity, 
distinguish three classes: Israelites, members of the royal family, 
and nobles, the latter two classes being by implication Baby- 
lonian. But the objective of the story is the fate of the Jewish 
captives solely. Jeph., CBMich. find three classes: (i) 'ex filiis 
Israel promiscuae sortis'; (2) royalty; (3) nobles; but this ar- 
rangement is not orderly. 'Israel' is appHed to the laity in 
contrast to the Levites, as indeed AEz. understands 'Israel' 
here; but the distinction is not used as between secular classes, 
with exception of possible appeal to Hos. 5'. It is best, there- 
lore, ace. to a Sem. usage, and following Jun. and Trem., Bert., 


Behr., Mar., al., to regard the 2d and 3d conj. as correlative, i.e., 
'Israelites, both of the seed royal and of the nobles.' The use 
of the Pers. word CJ^mS for Jewish gentlemen is not contra- 
dictory; it may represent actual courtly use, or be affectation of 
a high-sounding term, like our 'grandees'; so Ra. capitally inter- 
prets, D''D3"n 'duces,' and Sa. 'patriarchs,' a Syr. Church title. 
Jos. at once assumes that the youths of the story were of the 
royal family 'of Zedekiah,' and so Theodt.; so constant later 
Jewish tradition, s. Hamburger, RE i, 'Daniel,' at end. But 
this is as much surmise as the notion that Dan. was a priest, (S 

4. The persons to be selected were boys, i.e., of teachable age, 
of perfect physique and comeliness, with mental powers ap- 
proved by their primary education, so that they were wholly 
competent to take their part in the king's court. The stress lies, 
as naturally in a Jewish story, on the intellectual training. The 
three phrases used of the youths' mental qualifications are sim- 
ply accumulative and do not permit analysis into distinct men- 
tal functions; it is therefore difficult to give a satisfactory trans- 
lation of the Sem. rhetorical idiom (s. Note). It is a question 
whether the three ppls. are to be understood as futuritive (cf. 
GK §116, d) with some comm., or as qualities already acquired, 
with others. Grot, thinks of their education in the Law, the 
wisdom of Solomon, etc., but Jeph. properly denies that the 
king had any use for that sort of wisdom. But it is best with 
the Jewish comm. (so Sa. very positively in his tr.), to refer the 
ppls. to the past, of the preliminary humanistic education. The 
mng. of 'letters and language of (ancient) Chaldsea' has been 
made clear only since the discoveries in Assyriology, which were 
only slowly applied by the comm. to the elucidation of the 
phrase. Keil (1869) first among the comm. noted the possibility 
of understanding by it the language of the cuneiform script, and 
Knab. and Pr. still more positively insisted on the identification, 
followed by their successors, exc. Mein. There must have ex- 
isted a wide-spread popular tradition of the ancient hieroglyphic 
language (lepo'ypd/xixaTa) that had descended as the medium of 
the Chaldasan sages; its monuments with its cabalistic script 
were still in the public eye. Pliny names three cities famous at 
a late date for their ' Chaldaean learning,' Hist, nat., vi, 30, Baby- 
lon, Warka, Hipparene; cf. Strabo, xvi, i; and for the late sur- 

I^"^ 121 

vival of the cuneiform languages s. Int., §19,/. The parallel to 
the letters and wisdom of the Chaldaeans is found in 'all the 
wisdom of the Egyptians' in which Moses was educated, Acts 
7^^, a common midrashic notion. As in the latter case reference 
was not to the vulgar Egyptian of the day, but to the hiero- 
glyphic language, so the tradition here concerns not the Bab. 
vernacular of later times, but the mysterious language of the 
past surviving only among adepts. Had the writer meant Ara- 
maic he would doubtless have said so; but there would have 
been no point in his insisting on a culture in that tongue. So 
Nicolaus of Damascus reports (Miiller, Fragm. hist, gr., frag. 67), 
that "Cyrus was versed in the wisdom of the Magi," as well as 
trained in the arts of a gentleman. The query concerning the 
identity of this Chaldaean language is an ancient one. The most 
ancient interpretation (Jos. speaks only of the wisdom of the 
Chaldaeans, not of the language) identifies it with the Aram, 
dialect, which is taken up at 2^; Jer. in his Pref. to Dan. calls 
this language chaldaicus sermo ; and so in Pref. to Kings he iden- 
tifies the Syrian and Chaldaic tongues. However, in his comm. 
here he discusses Philo's opinion that Heb. was the same as 
Chaldee, as Abraham came from Chaldaea; but he inclines to the 
opinion of others that Abraham knew two languages. This iden- 
tification was Jewish, appearing prob. in the Talmud (s. Dalm., 
Gramm., p. 3), and was held by AEz., who interprets the Chal- 
daean language and the Aram, as the tongue of the king. Until 
the rise of Assyriology this view remained the prevailing one. 

Jeph.'s comment on this assembhng of cultured men at the 
royal court is pertinent: "The king's object was twofold: to 
gratify his fancy for men of knowledge; and to be able to boast 
that in his court are the greatest men of the world." Elder 
comm., e.g., Rosen., Hav., illustrate from a similar practice at 
the Sublime Porte. The royal court of letters played its part in 
ancient antiquity as well as in later civilizations; the Epistle of 
Aristeas represents the Jewish tradition of Ptolemy II's intel- 
lectual coterie of scholars; the Story of Ahikar proved how val- 
uable the trained thinker was to the king in his political emer- 
gencies. It became a later problem how far Daniel and his 
friends practised these heathen arts of the Chaldaeans. Chrys. 
argues that no blame lies in learning but only in the use, and 
Geier similarly holds that we must distinguish between theory 


and practice, that a knowledge of magic is useful in order to 
counteract it. Calv. more positively decides that Dan. would 
have made short work with any superstitions just as he did with 
the unclean foods. But the story stands for the readiness of the 
Jews to accept secular education, as all through their history, 
without despite to their religion; cf. the story of Joseph. 

5. As cadet members of the court the youths were taken on 
the budget of the royal menage and given a stated assignment 
of food and drink from the royal commissariat. A technical Pers. 
term is used of this gratuity, = 'assignment, appropriation,' and 
while the elder tr. 'portion' (AV JV) rests primarily on an 
erroneous Jewish etymology, it is more accurate than ' dainties ' 
(RVV) or 'delicacies' (Dr.), although by implication such fare 
must have been of superior quality. The Gr. fellow derivative, 
7roTi73a?t9, was used of honorific gifts from the royal table. Also 
the gift of the 'royal wine' {cf. Est. i^), the indispensable drink 
of the Persians, is specified. Dr. eft. for these honorary gifts of 
food, Gen. 43'^, 2 Sa. 11*, 2 Ki. 25^". But the Pers. court far ex- 
ceeded all its predecessors in lavish entertainment, and both 
Est. and the Gr. writers report the tradition of the opulence of 
the feast and of the regular support of innumerable guests at 
the royal table — a proof that the Pers. customs are in mind, not 
the Bab., as Hengst. argues, p. 335; s. Rawlinson, SGM 'The 
Fifth Monarchy,' c. 3. The youths were to be given the normal 
three years of training ace. to the Pers. system. See vLeng. at 
v."* for the Gr. notices on the education of the Pers. youth; ace. 
to Plato, Alcibiades I, 121, the higher education began in the 
14th year, and Xenophon, Cyrop., i, 2, assigns a limit above this 
at the 1 6th or 17th year. This triennium has its origin in the 
Avesta (SBE'^ 4, 311 _ff.): "How long a time of a year's length 
shall a student go to a master of spiritual learning ? For a period 
of three springtides (years) he shall gird himself with the holy 
education"; s. A. V. W. Jackson's excellent article on 'Pers. Edu- 
cation ' in Enc. of Education, which gathers all the material on 
the subject and fully illustrates our story. Much later in the 
old Pers. territory a three years' course was the vogue in the 
famous Nestorian school at Nisibis; s. Baumstark, Gesch. d. syr. 
Literatur, 114; Labourt, Le christianisme dans V empire perse, 


6. The four heroes of the following Stories are now introduced. 

I^'^ 123 

They are said to belong to the preferred tribe of Judah; were 
they of royal blood, as later tradition claimed (s. at v.'), this 
would have been noted. A failure in historic verisimilitude ap- 
pears in the absence of patronymics. The four names occur pre- 
dominantly or solely in late bks. of the O.T. ; all four appear in 
Neh. On Daniel s. Int., §2 and Note inf. 7. The Chief Eunuch 
signifies the adoption of these aliens into the court by giving 
them native names, which naturally contain elements of the 
Bab. religion. This change of name was a requisite for members 
of the court, and has its Bibl. precedent, as AEz. notes, in the 
change of Joseph's name (c/. Dr., DB ii, 7736: Erman, Life in 
Anc. Egypt, p. 517). We have so to explain the names of Zerub- 
babel, Shenassar and Sheshbassar, who were prob. brought up 
in the royal court. In any case there appears to have been but 
small objection on the part of Jews to the adoption of heathen 
names; Esther and Mordecai have their parallels in the papyri 
and in all Jewish literature. This tendency long preceded the 
subtle Hellenization of the 2d cent. Indeed the Jews, except 
possibly in periods of reaction {e.g., at present Jews returning to 
Palestine are adopting Heb. names), have never stickled at for- 
eign names, even those with heathenish implications: see Zunz, 
'Die Namen der Juden,' in Gesanimelte Abhandlungen, vol. 2. In 
Dan.'s cognomen Beltesa§§ar the Akk. word is evident as 
Baldtsu-usur, ' Protect-his-lif e ! ' (or with some, Baldt-sar-iisur, 
'Protect-the-life-of-the-Prince!'). Strangely enough Jewish tra- 
dition has vocalized this so as to insert the name 'Bel,' to agree 
with 4^^^\ ace. to which Dan. was named after Neb.'s god, i.e., 
Bel. If the writer meant to include 'Bel,' then he did not know 
how to analyze Bab. names. But there are other traditions of 
the vocalization of the name; so ^ with Belttsdsdr, i.e., as com- 
pounded with Belit, the paredros of Bel (but based on the Gr., 
not the Sem. spelling, which requires /, not /). The Grr., which 
U followed, identified the name with that of King Belsa§§ar, ren- 
dering both with BaXracrap. The three other names are dis- 
guised. The third doubtless stands for original 'Abed-Nebo,' 
'Servant of Nebo'; Sadrak is prob. perversion of Marduk; 
Mesak has not been explained. The outlandish heathen names 
of Babylonia were sardonically played upon by the Jewish tradi- 
tion. The theophoric elements Marduk and (his father) Nebo 
are characteristic of the later Bab. religion: s. Jastrow, Rel. Bab. 


u. Ass., I, c. 14. In the Apocryphon in c. 3 these Pagan names 
are discarded. 

3. -iDN-'i] lEN in the mostly late mng. 'command,* as in Arab. — 
tiDi^N] Despite Cheyne's gratuitous condemnation of the word, EB 
S.V., and the comparison or identification with rjorx Gen 10' (Hitz., 
Cheyne), following unconsciously Jos.'s precedent with his 'Aaxti:vT)<; 
AJ X, 10, 2, the name occurs as ijddn in an incantation text from 
Nippur published by Myhrman in the Hilprecht Anniversary Volume, 
345, 346, republished in my Aram. Incant. Texts, 145. With the name 
should be compared Aspazanda in Clay, BE x, p. 41. For elder views s. 
Rosen., vLeng., the latter with Rodiger's suggestion of Pers. aspa-ndsd, 
'horse-nose.' Justi, Iran. Namenbuch, 46, connects with Syr. aSpiza, 
Mand. sapinza, 'post-station,' NPers. siphanj, which can mean 'guest.' 
See Nestle, Marg., 38, with a possible ancestry from Lat. hospitium ( ! ). 
Prof. A. V. W. Jackson and Dr. Gehman have kindly examined the 
word for me and report no satisfactory results. <&'s 'A^teaSpt is due 
to identification of this officer with isSsn, v.", q.v. for the derivation 
of 'Ap. from nsSnn. g> A^paz, Lu. 'Aaxocafvi]. — vDno ai] Correctly 
the Grr., 'his chief eunuch,' i.e., chamberlain. For various titles in the 
Oriental court compounded with rob s. Meissner, Bab. u. Ass., i, 31; 
these compounds spread in the WSem. world, s. Lidz., NE 366. Aq. 
pedantically, ' teacher of the eunuchs.' This title appears also 2 Ki. 18", 
Jer. 39'- ", and in C/5ii, no. 38 (687 B.C.); cf. Phoen. onaiDai ('exalted 
chief eunuch'?), Lidz., I.e., Cooke, NSI no. 21. Sarts appears in Akk., 
Del., Hwb., 694, and Jastrow has demonstrated the same mng. for 
iarien in the Ass. Law Code, JAOS 41, 18. Haupt, JBL 1916, 321, 
explains 'D as a Safel of Di, 'with the testicles mashed.' But Winckler, 
Jensen, al., prefer to find in 'D ia reii, ' Vorgesetzter,' s. GB, Manitius, 
ZA 24, 109, n. I. The phenomenon of high military officers bearing the 
title appears to have raised doubts whether it meant primarily 'eunuch.' 
But it is easier to think of the latter word developing into the mng. of 
an official title than vice versa. Ancient evidence points to the use of 
'eunuch' as of a royal minister, and in Test. Joseph, 7, the eunuch 
Potiphar is not only married but has children. (On the other hand. 
Burton records that the actual eunuchs in Mekka have wives.) Further, 
eunuchs often distinguished themselves both in political and mihtary 
affairs. Apart from the probable case of Nehemiah, I note what 01m- 
stead says, Hist, of Ass., 153, of Daiian-Ashur, Shalmaneser's great 
vizier, remarking that a large proportion of highest officers, many of 
the military commanders, etc., on the testimony of the reliefs were 
eunuchs, and that "there is good reason to believe that D.-A. was 
one of these unfortunates." A general, Bagoas, of Ochus' expedition 

I^"'^ 125 

against Syria was a eunuch (Schiirer, GJV 3, 233, n. 22). Several such 
cases may be cited from Byzantine history, e.g., the illustrious com- 
mander Narses. — N-'inS] 'To introduce,' not 'to bring' from Judah, with 
CBMich. — h{<-\Z'> ijan] The theocratic name of the people is em- 
ployed (Hitz.) after the prevailing use of the Chronicler, unlike Neh.'s 
Memoirs and Est., where 'Jews' is used (s. Torrey, Composition, 35, for 
these terms in Chr.); all the Twelve Tribes are ideally included. At v.® 
the selected youths are described as of Judah. 05 inserts '[of the sons] 
Td)v n£YtffT(4v(ov [of Israel],' and xfiz a{xtAaX(oa(a<;. Blud., p. 51, 
suggests a primitive ni:' = <S || ■'2;:' = 0. But \iej. in(S (also i Esd. I'O 
appears to be an attempt to obtain a grading in the three classes. 
Megistani became the official designation of Parthian grandees (Sueto- 
nius, Calig., v, Tacitus, Ami., xv, 27, cf. Mommsen, Rom. Gesch., 5, 
343/.), and possibly t. ji-ey. is a doublet to IxtXixTuv = Pers. D^cmsn. 
0's X. alx- is an insertion from 2", and may be exegetical, as v.- speaks 
only of the captivity of the king. — 'on pi . . . jjitDi] The conjs. are 
correlative, 'both . . . and,' with Jun.-Trem., Bert., al; cf. f, 8^', 
Gen. 36-*, Ju. 6* (other cases BDB 253a, GB 1896). Some mss om. i 1°. 
A similar usage in Syr., Nold., SO §340, Duval, OS §387, b. — 131'?::^ >-\t] 
= 2 Ki. 25", etc. — DT.mij] Est. i', 6't; = OPers. fratama, 'fore- 
most'; the etymology first proposed by Anquetil de Perron and 
von Bohlen (s. Rosen.), anticipated by Jun., Geier, at., in compar- 
ing Gr. words of similar origin. See Lexx. and Paton, also Tisdall, 
JQR 4, 97. transliterates: (& e-ictXixTtov, 'selected.' Aq. in his 
first ed. (s. Field, i, p. xxiv seqq.) had ace. to Jer. exXExxtiv, but in 
the second xupdtwov, and so IB lyrannos. Similarly for ii-<-\2-\:> 3=- ' 
xup. (AsyiiXot (interpolated in (S), and so 4'' = in3in. xupavvo? ap- 
pears elsewhere in (B as tr. of 3nj. ]n, and also of petty princes, Job 
42"", 2 Mac. 5*. This is doubtless a Pal. reminiscence of Philistine 
pD = xupavvoq, which word actually appears in Targ., Nj-n-% as 
equivalent for JID, e.g., Ju. f; in Targ. Is. 34' = i^3.s. Also the Syr. 
Clemens Romaniis, p. 24, 1. 24 (ed. Lagarde) uses this word for the Heb. 
Judges in contrast with kings. Aq. thus interpreted the word with a 
correspondent Pal. term. Sym., xwv IlipOwv 'Parthians,' so g>, Chrys. 
= Theodt., irap6ivou<; by error. Cf. s^ima Targ. Est. i', Targ. II 
Est. 6', ed. Lagarde, = DT.-nfl. The anonymous 'Hebrew Interpre- 
ter' tr. euyevwv, and Jos. euyeveaxdxoui;, i-S-, thinking of Jewish 
nobles. The word came down from Pers. court language and appar- 
ently survived as designation of nobles. Cf. a Pers. title of like origin, 
l-in-iD, of Waidarnag at Yeb, APO pap. i, I. 5, and the title ni^.i-^d 
on Gr. coins of Persia, s. Hill, Gr. Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia and 
Persia, p. clxiv seq.; that is, these titles survived to a late date. 

4. ::i-iS^] Grr. vsavfaxou;, as of the Three Pages, i Esd. 3* " ; below 


uses TCotiSapia. Similarly Arab, ghiildm means page. — aiNc] Exc. 
here and Jer. 31' iJl"<^ always air:. It is best with Torrey, Notes, II, 229, 
to regard this form as a conflate spelling of did and nciAp 'anything,' 
and so to hold them apart. See Lexx. for proposed derivations: the two 
as identical, Dixc = 'spot' (so most recently BL 528, s), or as distinct 
words, which is far preferable. For noixa {cf. Akk. indefinites, mamma, 
mumma, etc.), cf. Arab, mahma, 'whatever' < ma-hu-ma (s. de Sacy, 
Gram, arabe", i, 195) = Heb. ma-{h)u-ma ; this derivation avoids the 
objection on ground of accent lying against Ges.'s derivation {Thes.) 
as from nni nn. Jewish lexicography is uncertain, Jastr. 5.t». Die; but 
the Jewish comm. here as 'blemish,' and so Sa. in his tr. C6 imitate 
the word d;xwu.ou?. Blud. has assembled several such cases of ^'s asso- 
nantal renderings, e.g., 1"" <pt>>6ao{poi = O^'iJi'N, 10' >^a'^Tca:B£s = ''T'bS; 
cf. Dr., Te.xt of Sam.-, at 5*. — hnid >3i::] Not archaistic, vs. Behr., Dr.; 
the expression is frequent in Est., e.g., i".— 'J1 diS^d:;'^] The comm. try 
their hand at obtaining exact specifications and a logical order in these 
three phrases, e.g., Hitz., but many confess it cannot be urged too far 
(e.g., CBMich., vLeng.). But it is best with Behr. to regard the phrases 
as superlatives, or rather cumulatives. Cf. njo man v.^", and the 
synonymity of these rts. in 2^'. The terms here are reversed inf. v.'^ 
Sem. diction abounds in the heaping of adjectival clauses to produce 
not an analytic but a single effect; e.g., frequently in the Arab, philo- 
sophic tract published by Dieterici, Thier u. Mensch. — t\-;-\ "i;n>] Cognate 
accusative, = njo V'T' 2-^—^15] An Aramaism in form as well as in 
origin, s. Kautzsch, Aramaismen, 51; = 'knowledge,' e.g., 2 Ch. i'""-; 
in Ecc. 10-° understood by many as 'seat of thought, mind,' but the 
parallelism here demands an objective gen. Later jjnjD = 'Gnosis' in 
the particular field of the Mandasan sect; cf. Akk. mudu, epithet of 
Enmeduranki and a priestly title, s. KAT 533, n. 9, p. 591; Jastrow, 
Rel. Bah. u. Ass., 2, 55. 148. But uses Yvwatq here for nyi.— no] = 
'ability'; summing up the virtues Usted, and referring to the youths' 
ability to carry themselves worthily in the royal presence. — isj'S] Tech- 
nical term for attendance on the royal court; so, more fully, -|- ^Jfl*? 
iScn, vv. '• ", cf. I Sa. 16--, etc.; and so of the servitors of Deity: of 
the priests, Dt. 10*; of the prophet, i Ki. 17^, cf. ' standing in the divine 
council,' Jer. 23^'; of the angels, inf. 7'°, Lu. i". Cf. APO pap. 49, 1. 9, 
and pap. 51, 1. 13. Cf. Akk. nazdzii ina pan, s. GB s.v. 2, d. — SD\n] In 
Akk. 'palace,' as here, but in the WSem. field most commonly of the 
god's temple, and so generally in O.T. So Aq., Sym. here, ev vatp, pos- 
sibly preserved in OrC ivdy-ziov, error for Iv vaep; cf. VSS at 4'. The 
same use as here appears in the Ahikar papp. Later usage reduced the 
word to the sense of 'mansion': s. Mandaic text in my Aram, hicant. 
Texts, no. 38, 1. 2, and the word survives in the same sense in the 

I^''^ 127 

Arab, of the Lebanon. — aisSSi]. The infin. depends upon nnfoi v.'. — 
noD] Correctly (6 Q YpdiAfiaTa, 19 HUeras, i.e., 'literature' (so Moff.), not 
'learning,' EVY. This abstract use of the word appears at i^', Is. 
2giiKr.i3_ -pjig same use of the word in Syr., e.g., Jn. 7" (= Ypx^txara), 
Acts 7-^; also Ep. Mar Serapion, in Cureton, Spkilegium, 43, 1. 9. Ori- 
gen tr. idd nnp Ju. i" by tc^Xk; ypaiJLpLdiTwv. Aq. unfortunately Pt^Xtov. 
In NHeb. rrisp, nn^cp = 'letters,' 'mathematics.' The noun is paired 
with the following \yyh as a const. This construction is not so 
'rare' as GK §128, a, n. i, holds, asserting that the present case and 
nyT Is. 11'' can be treated as 'ein absolut stehender Genetiv' — what- 
ever that may mean. Other cases are to be found in Gen. 14^°, Ju. i*, 
and freq. in Est., e.g., i'- 1*, 9^^, esp. 'script and tongue,' i^-, etc. Behr. 
cites the Jewish coin legend amnTi iani t^•x-\. The same use appears 
constantly in BAram., e.g., 5^- ^, 6'^, Ezr. 4'^, 5*, etc.; and in Sachau's 
pap. no. 1, 1. 23. In Syr. the paired construct is rare, Nold., SG §209 A, 
citing but one case; it is occasional in Mand., Nold., MG p. 309. In 
Arab, it is occasional in early poetry, frequent in later prose writers, 
Wright, Gr., 2, p. 201. In general the usage is proper where things 
go in pairs, as here. The accent on "laD is divisive, and so CBMich. 
argues for the distinction of 'letters and the Chald. tongue'; so appar- 
ently (&, but not 0. But Sa. tr. definitely, 'the script of the Chaldseans 
and their tongue.' — anro |V^S] 'The language of Chaldaea,' so the 
force of the anarthrous 'j; cf. a\i"'Sfl = 'Philistia,' etc., and the several 
Gentilic pis. in Gen. 10" f-. A Chaldasan district and tribe still survived 
on the Persian Gulf in Strabo's day, xvi, i, 6. 

5. pm] 'Assigned,' in sense of numerical distribution; as here, v."; 
in v." of assignment of a command. Cf. Kautzsch, Aramaismen, 108. 
The ELal in similar use Is. 65'=, Ps. 147''. — icva cp 131] = Jer. 52'* of 
the portion assigned to Jehoiachin by Evil-Merodach; so of the duty of 
the ministers of the temple, i Ch. 16". — ja-no] Also inf. and 11^', 
This separation into two words has prevailing Mass. authority and is 
accepted by Bar, Gin. (s. their notes, the ancient Hilleli Cod. treating 
it as one word), but not by Mich., Kit. Kamp. notes that as one word 3 
should not have dage's, eft. OJriiJ 3'*. The separation was due to a popu- 
lar etymology, as though ."13 = Heb. 'portion,' an etymology not known 
to the ancients. Ra. says that the word means cooked food in contrast 
to raw, AEz. interprets J2 from the erroneous J2 Eze. 2$'. Sa. also tr. 
with two words, 'bread and condiment ('udm).' C5 paraphrases cor- 
rectly, 'an allowance (exOscts, cf. Blud., p. 35, n. 5) from the king's 
house'; apparently connects with Aram, xmno and tr. xpaxsl^a; 10 
excellently annonam. The word is OPers. pat'baga (= Sansk. prati- 
hhaga), 'portion,' taken into Syr. as nj3"Jd (so here in W), and into Gr. 
as TcoTt^al^is. For its definition s. Athenaeus, xi, c. 109, ace. to whom 


it included certain honorific gifts; in Syr. = 'dainties,' s. PSmith. The 
identification with xoxt^. was made by Grot, and Castellus. — rniyn] 
Sing., cj. v.'" and s. GK §93, ss, cj. i Sa. 19*; possible other cases GK 
§124 k. AEz. interprets the pi. of the various wines at the different 
seasons. — oSnjSi] For the loose syntax of the infin. cj. the exact 
parallel Gen. 42^'. The infin. may depend by a zeugma of mngs. on pM 
{cj. 2^* NiainS ijc), or be a case of the loose construction of the infin. 
with S equivalent to a finite: e.g., Am. 8^ and BAram. inj. 2'* '', 5**; 
s. GK §114, p, Dr., Tenses, §206; cj. Eng., 'and so to.' There is no 
need with Mar., Lohr, to reverse the two halves of the v., aligning 'jSi 
with Ni^nS and didSSi. Ehr. cancels the first half as superfluous; but 
the apparently minor point of the cuisine is the hinge of the story. 
The vb. means, not 'nourish' with "B EVV Dr., al., but 'educate,' 
with CS S» CBMich., al., Moff. It means 'bring up' physically, e.g., Is. i^, 
and then intellectually, e.g., 2 Ki. 10^, and so = Syr. N^n Pael, e.g., Acts 
22', and terbitd 'education.' — a.isps] = 'at their end,' as vv.^^- '', after 
the more common sense, not 'some of them' by reason of the masc. 
suff., so (&. (AEz. offers both constructions; Sa. definitely tr. as here.) 
Such inconcinnity of agreement appears freq. in Heb., e.g., inj. 8', and 
s. GK §135, o, Diehl, Das Pronomen pers. snf., Giessen, 1895, and for 
the Aram, dialects, Kau., §53, Anm. a. b, and Nold., MG §147. — nc/""] 
The infin. construction is resolved into the finite with reason as a change 
of subj. is involved; CBMich. cjt. Is. 32^ Cj. the Arab, subjunct. with 
ja, Wright, Gr., 2, p. 30. Dr., Tenses, p. 139, n. i, cites this as a case 
'in inferior prose,' but hardly with justice. For similar usage in Aram, 
s. at yi". 

6. ''Hii] Gin. notes a Sehir (s. his Int., p. 187) rn^i. For sing. vb. with 
pi. subj. s. GK §145, o. p. In BAram. the present construction appears 
in Ezr. s'- '• ', and is frequent in Syr., Nold., SG §322. — onj] = 'among 
them,' so e.g., Ex. 14^'. ®'s paraphrase makes the identification of Judah 
as one of the tribes of Israel. — "^x.^J";] = Eze. 14*- -", 28' Kt. Snji, of 
the traditional sage; also a son of David, i Ch. 3', and a priest, Ezr. S'', 
Neh. 10'. The name is also Akk., Ddnilu, and Sab., Palm., Nab., s. 
Lexx.; also of an angel, Enoch 69^. There is no reason to doubt the 
mng. *E1 has judged'; the name is taken from tradition, not invented 
for this bk. Geiger, Urschrijl, 296, Gin., Int., 397, think of the Mass. 
pointing as intentionally obscuring the sacred element el; but it is 
phonetically correct. — n>jjn] See Lexx.; it appears in Akk. transcrip- 
tion as Hananiyama and on an Aram, docket from Nippur, ijjn; also 
in Sachau's papp.; in Jewish inscriptions, Lidz., NE 278, Eph. 2, 72; in 
Tobit, 5", and in N.T.— Ss^'^d] Name of a cousin of Moses, Ex. 6^, 
and of a person in Neh. 8^ Delitzsch (in Bar, p. xi) interprets, ' who is 
what God is?'; so BDB and most modern comm.; Hommel, Anc. Heb. 

I^''^ 129 

Tradition, 300, 'who is a god?' (but Hwb., 'wer ist der der Gott ist?'), 
and eft. Sn3"io as Hitz. had done, deriving element c from r\yy 'be like.' 
But Schrader rightly refutes such an etymology, COT 2, 106; Methugael 
is not similar. The name = ':'n>:5"'5 with /D = 'salvation,' as in the 
Moab. name y^D; cf. SNyanx > '?x3-\x Hos. 10", Sn;;.-it\ And so, I find, 
Torrey, Notes, I, 257, decides. — nnij?] An ancient name, common in 
the later age; also in the papp.; s. Lexx. 1^ has conj. before this last 
name, supplies it to the last three names; (S has asyndeton through- 
out, and is prob. original; s. at v.^°. The order of the last three names 
is alphabetical. Some Gr. Mss, also (S^, place Azarias before Mishael, 
probably in consequence of the central position taken by the former in 
3"f-. — 7. mcty . . . Di:'"'i] Cf. 2 Ki. 17^*, Neh. 9"; otherwise the phrase 
appears only in BAram. (5'-), Syr., NHeb., JAram.; c/. Jastr., 5.». did. 
There is no reason with Scheftelowitz, Arisches im A.T., 64, to hold 
that the phrase is due to Pers. influence. — acM 2°] C8> © 13 om.; it is 
superfluous and may have come in from v.^. — "'?^1^'?.?] In 10' (not all 
mss) ixsyNaSj. The name prob. = Bald{su-u§ur (with Akk. 5 > Heb. s), 
cf. Schrader, COT ad loc, BDB; but GB prefers Baldl-sar-u^ur, but 
hardly with reason appealing to the Gr. form; Professor Clay has in- 
formed me that this derivation 'is not possible.' Delitzsch, in Bar, p. ix, 
thinks that the name has been abbreviated from Bel-haldtsu-u^ur, which 
would then explain 4^(^>. None of these suggested names actually oc- 
curs in Akk. Wilson, p. 30, assumes Bel-li(-iar-upir, 'Bel protect the 
hostage of the king,' but without warrant. The testimony of the VSS 
is against M's doubling of the j, which may represent the original pe- 
nultimate accentuation (appearing actually in some cursives). The ele- 
ment usur is variously vocalized, e.g., i?f><ic. The Grr. identified this 
name with ' Belshazzar,' hence for both BaXxotaap; A Bapxaaap is due to 
Coptic exchange of liquids, cf. Aixtpaap v.". — Tnc] This and the fol- 
lowing itVD were analyzed by Del. in Bar, p. xii, as containing the Su- 
merian element aku, 'moon god,' approved by Schrader (for 'C alone) 
and by Kon., Hwb. Lenormant, Jensen suggested identification with 
the Elamite god Sutruk {EB 4420). It is most reasonable to conclude 
with Zimmern, KAT 2g6, Jahn, that ''^, like iiDj, 2 Ki. ig" (so for the 
latter Cheyne earlier), is an intentional perversion of ^^^c, 'Marduk.' 
For such a n. pr. cf. the Aram, docket name 1t\d in CIS ii, no. 68, and 
cf. Jehu, Hadad, etc. — ^^''^] K. Kohler, on these names, ZA 1889, 46- 
51, and Winckler, Altor. Forsch., 3, 56/., suggested a perversion of T'^'i^t 
cipher for Babel, Jer. 25^° (Grot, had made the comparison). Again 
Marduk may be contained in the word. The spelling of these names 
in Gr. mss with -x appears to be Origenian. — uj lay] Again the ele- 
ments separated by M against the orig. use; at 3^' nuj 12';. The 
first element very common in late names, BibUcal and cpigraphical, s. 


Lexx., Sachau, APO Index, Lidz., NE 332/. It is pointed here Aramaic- 
wise; so MS 51 alone A^sSvayw = Lu. uj is doubtless disguise of 12 j; 
so Sa. (cited by AEz., who holds it to be without proof). Nebo is a 
common element in late WSem. names; s. Sachau, Lidz., i2i-\2-; 
is found in Syr., Cureton, Anc. Syr. Doc, text, p. 14. Ace. to Kon., 
Lgb., 2, 465, Ruzicka, ' Konsonantische Dissimilation,' BA 6, Heft 4, p. 
126, Bergstr., Gr. §20, c, the change is one of phonetic dissimilation. 
But it is far more likely an intentional perversion to avoid an idolatrous 
name, as in the preceding names, and cf. Timnath-serah, Jos. 19*" and 
Sukkoth-benoth, 2 Ki. 17^° (see my note, JBL 31, 141). Winckler, I.e., 
calls attention to the combination of these names in Jos.'s report of a 
letter of Darius to the Samaritan officials, AJ xi, 4, 9, in which occur 
Sadrakes, Ananias, and Bo^tjIov, i.e., Ba^uXwv, = itftt' = -[CD (?). 

8-17. The test of piety demanded by Daniel. 8. Dan. made 
up his mind not to defile himself with the heathen foods, and 
proffered his petition to the Chief Eunuch that he might be ex- 
cused; the sequel shows that he was also speaking for his com- 
panions. VLeng. first exhibited at length the motives for this 
abstention: the scruples against meats sacrificed 'with the blood' 
(so PsSa.) and probably et8co\66vra^ Acts 15^^, and against 
wine as generally graced with a religious libation {cf. i Cor. 10^') > 
while at least the later law was peculiarly rigorous against the 
defilement of drinkables and their vessels. Jos. gives a parallel 
in his anecdote of the pious Jews in whose cause he went to 
Rome, who lived only on figs and nuts, Life, §3. So Judas and 
his company preferred to live in the mountains like wild beasts 
and to eat grasses to escape pollution, 2 Mac. 5". The scruple is 
finer than that exhibited in i Mac. i^- '^•j etc., where Jews resisted 
the compulsory eating of taboo foods. We may rather compare 
the pious practice of Tobit, who abstained from eating the food 
of the Gentiles, Tob. i^°^-, and of Esther, who ace. to a Gr. 
addition to Est. 4 (13^*) pleaded to God that she had not eaten 
of Haman's table or honored the king's symposium or drunk 
wine of oblations. The story of Judith first illustrates the prac- 
tice of a Jew carrying a wallet ('mjpa = N.T. ko^lvo'^^ the 
cophinus of the satirists) to avoid contamination from unclean 
foods, Jud. 10^, etc. The extreme of this principle is summed up 
in Jub. 22^*^, 'Separate thyself from the nations and eat not with 
them ' ; with which cf. and contrast the story of Peter in Acts 10. 
For this Jewish regulation of life s. Schiirer, GJV 2, 91 ff. It is 

I«-17 131 

accordingly quite out of question to compare Esther's fasting, 
Est. 4", or to suppose that Dan.'s action was tinged with 
asceticism (so Whiston to Jos., I.e., Aph. Syr., Albert Magnus, 
Knab.), or was symptomatic of early Essenism (so Behr., p. xxv), 
or to rationalize with Jos. and Calv. and to think of a puritanic 
discipline of body and mind. Issue must be taken with vLeng., 
al., that this feature implies the Mace, puritanism; cf. Tobit, 
while the practice was logically based on the Law; cf. Eze. pas- 
sim, Is. 52", Zech. 14^1, etc. 9. 10. Divine grace prompted the 
official to a sympathetic reply. Jewish romance always repre- 
sents its heroes as on good terms with officialdom, cf. Esther, 
the story of Joseph the Tobiade in Jos., A J xii, 4, etc., a feature 
which had its corroboration in actual history, e.g., the cases of 
Zerubbabel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Jews of the Elephantine 
garrison. But the official deprecated the request on the ground 
that the physical condition of the youths would suffer, for which 
the king would hold him responsible. A capital penalty is not 
involved in the caution he feels; the final phrase means that 
they would bring the responsibility on him, s. Note. The king's 
suspicions would be aroused when he 'saw their faces (appear- 
ance) out of sorts in comparison with the youths of their own 
age' (not 'of their sort,' with AV). 

11-16. Dan. then appeals privately to a lower official, the 
'warden,' as the Heb. word means, who was charged with the 
care of the youths and their diet. With the exception of (B and 
Jos. and of a few moderns who have a penchant for ®'s text, 
the tradition has rightly distinguished between this official and 
the Chief Eunuch. But the question as to the word hatnmelsar 
lies between the interpretations as of a proper name, so 0^11 AV 
RVVmg, and of a title, as the article proves; but it is doubtless 
the latter, and the Akk. or Aram, original can be recovered by 
help of the vocalizations preserved in ^ Lu. T^, and the transla- 
tions of A and Sa. ; s. Note. An underling might grant the boon 
without fear of discovery. Dan. lays a wager of faith with the 
warden on the issue of the test to judge of their physical condi- 
tion. A bit of Oriental color is added by the Grr. in translating, 
'he was taking to himself,' avaLpov/j,evo<;^ i.e., enjoying the 
' graft ' of the arrangement, and this notion is followed by S* B 
Sa. and the Jewish comm. The latter are inclined to press the 
miracle; Jeph. thinks that the Creator must have put something 


extra into the food and water. Mar. rationalizes; better Grot., 
who while he recalls a Gr. line to the effect that 'a fat belly- 
does not make a fine mind,' insists that here where beauty was 
concerned the work of God is evident. But the test was above 
all a miracle of faith with its complement in the divine help; 
Jer. notes that Dan. even fixed the time; and Theodt. holds that 
this incident is one of many proving that nothing is stronger 
than faith. Cf. the story of Joseph in Test. Jos. 3^, who ' fasted 
for seven years and appeared to the Egyptians as one living 
delicately, for they that fast for God's sake receive beauty of 
face,' and on the other hand deliberately ate of the poisoned 
food without harm, c. 6. The 'pulse' of v.^^ doubtless included 
grains, e.g., the parched grains so common a food in the Orient; 
s. Note for variety of specifications of the word. In v.^^ tr. 'as 
thou seest fit,' not 'as thou seest [us]' EW. In v.^^ not their 
faces were fatter (AV), but their persons, so RW JV, 

17. In the process of the 3-years course of education the ex- 
cellence of the Jewish youths was demonstrated. All four ac- 
credited themselves in letters and philosophy ('learning and 
wisdom,' AV), while Dan. distinguished himself in the 'under- 
standing,' i.e., power of interpretation, of visions and dreams. 
This faculty may have been exhibited in competition with the 
other students, for the training of the sages was especially di- 
rected toward these recondite mysteries (s. at 2^ for the several 
classes of Wise Men). Dan.'s specialty in visions and dreams 
does not belong to the highest category of revelation, that of 
prophecy; the Prophets had long since passed away, i Mac. 4^®, 
and the highest business of the Jewish sage was the interpreta- 
tion of their oracles, cf. Dan. (f and Ecclus. 39^: 'He will seek 
out the wisdom of all the ancients and will be occupied with 
prophecies.' Dreams and visions belonged to a lower and often 
deceptive form of revelation, cf. Jer. 23, a fact recognized in 
Ecclus. 34^^-. But in competition with Pagan interpreters of 
those phenomena (of whose power in those arts there was no 
doubt) pious and spiritually cultivated Jews might gain their 
laurels. Joseph was the classic instance in antiquity; and now 
*a Daniel is come to judgment' with the arts of the Chaldasans, 
who also, ace. to Diodorus Siculus, ii, 29, were adepts in dreams. 
The color of the story is true to the stress laid by the Bab. cul- 
ture upon dreams, and is evidence, like the magical papyri and 

the Classical writings on dreams and omens, for the continu- 
ance of the ' Chaldaean wisdom ' long after the disappearance of 
the Bab. empire. For the part played by dreams s. Int. to c. 2. 

8. ^2h Sj? D'^''i] = 'made up his mind,' so Mai. 2^; cf. Acts 5*, 19'^ 
(similarly Pesh.). The phrase is not identical with 2^ Sy av:^ atiimadver- 
tere, e.g., Is. 47'. — kS its'x] Exc. Gen. 11^, Ex. 20^, late, = jd = Aram. 
nS n; s. Kon., Syn. 574, GK §157. — S^jri''] Snj late = Syr., softened 
from ^yy, Mar. cfL 2jjn > axn; in Priest Code nd;^. Sym.'s ixccSivOt) (Field) 
supported by the glosses to 36 233. — tr'pjii] Primarily 'seek demand,' 
later in weakened sense 'ask'; v.^" 'ask a question.' — 9. jnii] This 
may be understood as a case of waiv-consec. where the sequence is not 
historical but that of order of ideas, cf. Dr., Tenses, §§75. 76; and so 
AV Moff. But rather the sequence is historical; upon the request of 
the strange youth God inspired the official with favor toward him. — 
D-'cnnS . . . ]nii] The phrase but without ion i Ki. 8^°, Ps. 106", Neh. 
i" {cf. 2 Ch. 30'), and APO i, 1. 2, and Test. Jos. 2', e[<; ofxTtp[j.ou<;; 
the same with ion alone lies behind Judith lo*, eJ? x&piv. A similar 
construction in Gen. 43", and note Test. Jos. 2', where in x<4p'v x. lAoptptjv 
orig. ij?i was read ini. The sentiments are made concrete in their 
object, cf. Hos. 9'° DanxD. — aicm] The vocalization is abnormal; we 
expect '^'''?'?1, s. Kon., Lgb., 2, p. 34, 'eine durch Kiirze abweichende 
Wortgestalt,' eft. p. 467, av^-^, etc.— 10. ns'? ib-n] = Aram. hdS n Ezr. 
7-', Syr. NcSi, so & here; = nnStr Song i'. Similar Aramaisms Jon. i'- *, 
Ecc. 1^2, cf. Dr., LOT 475, note. — aioyr] Ehr. prefers the verbal adj. 
1i'4 as in I Ki. 20"; but the pointing is corroborated by Gen. 40', Pr. 19''. 
The rt. = 'disturb,' e.g., of the sea, Jon. i^*; then as here and Gen. 40° 
(whence the word is taken) mentally 'disturbed, upset, out of sorts,' 
passing into the idea of anger, e.g., Pr. 19^-. Correctly axuOpwicof, 
'melancholy,' as (& Gen. 40', Lu. 27", esp. Mt. 6'', also as result of fast- 
ing. (6 ii.oLTsxpa\i.\iiva, 'perplexed.' — p] = 'in comparison with'; cf. 
Arab. 'an. — odSjd, Kit. ddSud] Cf. Bar's and Gin.'s notes. Sj from rt. 
Si J II SSj = 'circle, generation' {cf. in); so in Sam. (e.g., Targ. Gen. 
17'), NHeb., where iS^j p = 'his contemporary,' s. Jastr.,and Buxtorf,as 
of one born under the same star; hence not an Arabism, vs. Jahn. Arab. 
jil is used in the same way; Rosen, eft. Hariri, Assemblies, 4, p. 35, ed. de 
Sacy, ma' a jilatika wajiratika, 'with your contemporaries and neigh- 
bors.' C/. Syr., 'sons of one's years,' g* here and at Gal. i'*. 0&B cor- 
rectly translate; ^'s auvxpecpoji-lvoui; a conjecture, the addition xwv 
deXXoyevdiv not in (S^, a gloss to the word. Sa. tr. correctly, and AEz. 
notes the word as late Heb. — 'Ji nna-'n] Lit. 'condemn my head to the 
king.' The rt. is Aram, rather than Heb.; the noun ^m Eze. 18' is 
doubtful (^n3n is read by Wellhausen, Dr., at i Sa. 22-); the rt. appears 


in BSira, Aram, papp., NHeb., s. GB; also in Zad. Fr., p. 3, 1. 10. The 
phrase is transliterated literally by OH; (8 'I will run the risk of my 
head'; & 'the king will cut off my head.' So in this rigorous sense the 
comm. generally. But cf. the Syr. mesdm here's, 'penalty,' not necessarily 
capital, e.g., Acts 4^^; cf. the expression to 'put one's way on his head,' 
I Ki. 8'-, Eze. 9^°. The phrase is curt for 'put (the responsibility) on my 
head'; cf. Sus. v.^', eil'eucjcxt efs t9)v aeauxoO x£(paX-f)v, i.e., 'to your own 
condemnation.' And so Sa. interprets, 'you will bring it down upon my 
head.' — 11. is'l'nri] by misreading A[xeXaaS = iC at i'^; Or? (appar- 
ently orig. OrC, e.g., 106 at v.'O AjAsXaap = A Apiepaap by Coptic ex- 
change of liquids, cf. BapTtzaap v.'; Lu. AtJisXXaaap; & is^ja (so Ambro- 
sian and Urmia texts vs. Walton and Lee isicc) ; A has the same tradi- 
tion miindsir, s. Gehman, p. 339; B Malasar. Thus Lu. & U A agree in 
a similar vocalization vs. M. Schrader, COT, and Delitzsch (in Ear, 
p. xi) proposed derivation from Akk. massar, 'watch,' e.g., massar habi, 
'sentry of the gate.' This clew is corroborated by & menaisar (Paiel ppl. ?) 
and A mundsir, 'keeper.' As this is supported by the vocalization of 
Lu. and 19, I suggest a Pael ppl., menassar, with differentiation of 7t 
into I in proximity with m; cf. n-'DSvir Song 7I = d^diw, nSon Eze. 1=^ 
prob. = pnn; and n.b. EvefAaaaap Tob. i*^ = Salmaneser, and vice versa, 
Herodotus' Lahynnetos for Nabonidos. The word is then an old Akk. 
or Aram, term for a 'guard'; the rt. in OAram., Lidz., NE p. 325. The 
ancients treated the word as a But Sa. and Ibn Janah (p. 355) 
recognized it as hazdn or hdzin, 'treasurer,' and so the Jewish comm.; 
and the early Prot. comm. mostly followed the Jews. For various at- 
tempts at interpretation s. CBMich., Rosen., Hitz., Keil. Lenormant 
suggested amel-ussur, 'treasurer.' But Mar., Cheyne (EB 3018), Jahn, 
Cha. prefer the rdg. of (B> AptsaSpt, with which (^ had replaced the 
Ashpenaz of v.'. If (S be right, then is to be corrected in both 
places. But such identification ignores a clever moment in the story, 
the appeal to a lower servant. In matter of fact the phrase in (S repre- 
sents the actual text of ^ : 'cn = AptsaSpi, "iti'x = tw, hjd = avotosi/- 
GsvTt, 'on -)'y = ap^teuv. Accordingly Ap. is to be explained from /cn, 
viz.: the two final consonants = eaSpt, as normally in such forms (e.g., 
EaSp3((;); the labial m became b, the /, weak in Coptic, disappeared. 
The change arose through the oral transmission of the story under 
Eg\T3tian influence, with the result of evolving a good Heb. name. 
Josephus also identifies the two officials, but rdg. Ashpenaz (Aschanes) 
in v.', then substituting this name here for 'cn. It is possible that 
A^teaSpt in both places is subsequent to Jos. — 12. dj] ^6'^e (= Aq.) 
Soz.(;j.affov, so v.". — miry] In Dan. as in the Chronicler the numeral 
stands as often after as before the noun. The lo-day period, like the 
week or our fortnight, was a common expression for a few days; like 

i'-^' 135 

the 7-day week it had its own term, mcy, cj. Gen. 24" and Acts 25*, 
'8 days or 10.' There is an allusion to these 10 days of trial in Rev. 2'°, 
and ace. to Jewish tradition Abraham had 10 temptations, Jub. 19^ (s. 
Cha.'s note to i7'')> Pirke Aboth 5, 4 (s. Taylor, ad loc), and likewise 
Joseph, Test. Jos. 2'. — urfi] For indef. subj. cj. GK §144, f. g; not 
necessarily an 'Aramaism' (Behr.). — 3"'PI.] Cj. '>y\l 'what is sown,' 
i.e., seedling, vegetable. Lev. 11", Is. 6i'i; for the forms s. Lexx. In v." 
a^'jiinr is used = Syr. zar'on, Talm. zer'on, the Aram, equivalent. For 
variety of forms of the same word in Dan. s. Behr., p. iii, who ascribes 
it to carelessness, so Kamp., but per con. Mar. objects. Prob. the com- 
mon word of later use has intruded itself into the second place (or was 
it in the Aram, original in both places?). The Soferim have allowed 
both forms to stand as recognized varieties of reading; cj. Bostrom, 
Alternative Rdgs. in the Heb. oj the Bks. oj Samuel, Rock Island, 1918, 
p. 19. ^ offxptct (-|- XT)!; yT]?, adopted by OrP Lu.) 'pulse' (EVV), so Jew- 
ish comm., who include berries, etc.; Sa. 'grains.' axspyLd-iwv as from 
O'J;']!; B legiimina, which Dr. prefers. Jos. has 'pulse and dates'; cj. the 
diet of figs and nuts recorded for certain Jews in his Lijc, c. 3. Ace. to 
Krauss, Talm. Archdologie, i, 115, aij>ni means beans and the like; 
but Low, JE 3, 332, cites Kilaim ii, 3, where the word includes turnips, 
onions, etc. AEz. has a long discussion of the word at v.", evidently a 
moot point. G. F. Moore, in Harv. Theol. Rev., 17, 358, n. 176, remarks: 
"The reason for the specification of 'pulse' is perhaps that, being dry, 
it did not contract uncleanness from contact with unclean hands," and 
gives reff. 

13. u^N-^c] Also MSS liN-i::; sing, like foil, nxi:; and as at v.^^ with 
sing, vb.; (5 sing. vs. H, cj. EW; the pi. vb. is due to the two subjects. 
— HNnn] For -^(s. Bar) in place of normal -^; cj. Kon., Lgb. i, p. 531, 
GK §75, hh. No explanation can be given of the vowel, exc. poss. as 
an Aramaism (so BL p. 425). The vb. means ' see fit, have opinion,' and 
so C6, JHMich., Behr., al., apparently Ra.; so the ppl. Est. 2' and freq. in 
NHeb.; cj. ntn iuj. 3I'. — 14. nrn -^^^'^] 'In regard to this matter'; O 
om., but (6 corroborates, rdg. •;vz'^^ as !:7"'i. — 15. -i:;'3 \xn3] Con- 
striictio ad sensum, Hav.; it depends upon the pi. suff. So Sa., who in- 
serts 'their bodies [were fatter],' and RVV JV; H makes the 
phrase adjectival to 'faces' = AV. tr. correctly but ungrammati- 
cally, wpaaGfjaav al eESiat dyaOal /.. faxupol (B A 106; Q al. caxupai) 
Talc; aap^fv, which is substantiated by ffiw^b ip^i jortes, which clever 
amendment appears also independently in Lu. aOxol bxupof. (& fj 
e^it; Tou aa);j.otxos, where 'i^iq (= Lat. habitus) represents an interpre- 
tation as though T'-ii, which is found in BSir 16" = 'creation,' in NHeb. 
'creation, constitution.' — Vd] om. — 16. i^'^i ''Hm] Not necessarily 
Aram, usage, vs. vLeng.; it appears in Heb., but early only rarely, Dr., 


Tenses, § 135 (5). For dvatpouixevoq a gloss in T)^^^ XaiiSivwv (Aq. ?). 
— 17. Snijii . . . □nS\ni] The prefixing of the subjects emphasizes 
them and mutually contrasts them; e.g., 2 Ki. 17'', and cf. Dr., Tenses, 
§160, Obs. — dpjjj-in] = Eze. i'°; the same form for 7 in 2 Sa. 21'; a case 
of this form in BAram., inf. 3"', q.v. The opening phrase is variously 
rendered by the Gr. VSS and revisions; H et illis quailuor pueris agrees 
closest with Lu. — Sd^'hi yiD] The same phrase as here used adverbially, 
Jer. 3'' '?i3cni nyi. For the abs. infin. as noun cf. tapttri Is. 32"; cf. the 
freq. substantival use of Afel infin. in Aram., e.g., Dalman, Gr. §34. — 
nc3m idd] S. at v.*. Iff here, not at v.'', follows Aq., in omni libra. 
N.h. Berossus' note of Oannes' instruction of the Babylonians, Ypa',i.- 
tidiTwv v.. [xaOTipLaTwv x. tex'^wv xavxoSaxwv eixiveipfav (Eus., Chron. I, ed. 
Schoene, p. 14).— '^ V^^] So 9=', 11", Neh. 8''-; Sa. as active, 'he (God) 
distinguished Dan.' — ptn] The word for 'vision' in Dan.; mostly late, 
cf. nirn, pitn. The word is used collectively (& properly as pi.), so 
Hos. 12"; cf. Aram. Nvn, 2'', the use of -\dd v.^ and rh•hr^ nSn. — In this 
V. <S has been glossed: by the plus x. ippovTjatv from ©; at the end by the 
plus X. ev Ti(x<sTi ao9ta = ncDH. Also a primitive error pTjixaxt has been 
corrected by the plus opa[i,aTt. 

18-21. Acc. to w.i*- " at the end of the 3-year term the Chief 
Eunuch introduced the corps of young alumni to the king, who 
by personal inquisition found Dan. and his three comrades su- 
perior to all the rest. The result was that they were given com- 
missions in the court ('stood before the king')- The practical 
use of such sages appears in the art of the wise Ahikar in unrid- 
dling the riddles of the king's competitors, and a somewhat simi- 
lar function is that of Dan. in 5^^ In addition to the classical 
case of Joseph, we find the bk. of Tobit making Ahikar a nephew 
of the pious Tobit; Ben Sirach expresses the pathetic desire to 
'serve among great men and to appear before him who rules,' 
Ecclus. 39^ In the cosmopolitan character of those empires a 
wise Jew might reasonably have adorned the court of a great 
king, with no questions asked as to his religion. Later Jewish 
tradition boasted of the cosmopolitan learning of Hillel: "There 
was no wisdom, no language he knew not," and so of Jochanan 
b. Zakkai (Bousset, Rel. d. Jud., 190). 

20 reinforces the king's findings in v.^^ by telling how in all 
subsequent issues he found the answers and advice of these Jew- 
ish courtiers 'ten times preferable' to those of their colleagues. 
Hitz., ignoring this new moment, thinks that the narrator re- 
turns to v.i^'' in order to detail the degree and the points of their 


superiority. Mar., followed by Jahn, Cha., repeats Hitz., hold- 
ing that the v. is a disturbing anticipation of c. 2; hence it 
should be elided, along with v.^i (v. inf.). But such criticism 
would wreck any naively told story. Kings are forgetful as well 
as ungrateful, a fact illustrated in the story of Mordecai. A 
similar inconsequence is found in the compilation of the story 
of Belsh.'s feast with the earlier cc. The 'magicians and en- 
chanters,' Jiartiimmim, 'aSMptm, who are distinguished in com- 
parison with the Jewish youths, are inclusive terms, the one 
representing the Egyptian magic (so the first word is used in 
the Egyptian stories. Gen. 418, Ex. 8^ etc.), and the other the 
Bab. magic, where a correct Bab. term is used, dsipu. They are 
not to be treated as having technical mng. ; the writer has no 
special knowledge of the elaborate development of those castes. 
(B cleverly rationalizes these two classes into 'sophists and 
philosophers' (with an alliterative word-play, s. Note at v.'*); 
Jer. makes apology: "discunt ergo ea mente doctrinam Chal- 
daeorum qua et Moyses omnem sapientiam Aegyptiorum di- 
dicerat"; similarly JHMich.: "magos, non qua praestigiis et 
fascino deditos, sed qua philosophos ac naturae scrutatores et 
sapientes." B has truer equivalents, iTracoiOoi (= '"in also 
Ex. 7", etc.), 'enchanters,' and f^dyot (outside of Dan. only in 
Aq., Sym., e.g., Aq. Dt. 18" = niS); similarly B arioli et magi. 
Sa. tr. 'wise men and astronomers'; so Ibn Janah for ''^^. Ra. 
understands the two terms as of necromancers who used the 
bones of the dead, and astronomers; AEz. explains both as of 
physicians and dream-interpreters. 

21. 'And Daniel continued [when and how he was — colloquial 
Eng., 'remained on'] until the first year of King Cyrus.' The 
implication is that he was vouchsafed the joy of the release 
under Cyrus, and possibly that he like other faithful Jews re- 
turned home upon that glorious event. Such a return was under- 
stood by one form of Midrashic tradition, s. Hamburger, RE i, 
225. The contradiction with lo^, ace. to which Dan. had a 
vision in Cyrus' 3d year, in the Far Orient, is removed by the 
critical distinction of cc. 1-6 and 7-12 as distinct books; s. 
§21, a. This removes the arguments made by Mar., Jahn, Cha. 
against the originality of the v. The editor of the whole bk., or 
composer of cc. 7-12, did not observe the clash between the 
dates (recognized however by (5 which reads 'first year' at lo^). 


To overcome the contradiction and for the interpretation of the 
vb. 'continued' various exegetical expedients have been devised: 
he remained in honor, AEz. : or, in the king's gate, Hitz. ; or, in 
prophecy, Stu.; or, in Babylon, so Jer. at 6^, CBMich. holding 
that he was then removed or exiled to Media. The Heb. vb. 
rrri 'to be,' in the sense as translated here, 'continued,' is fully 
corroborated, as noted by Hiiv., al. The tr. of GV Mofif. 'lived' 
has the implication that Dan. died thereupon. 

18. itt'N] Not '(the days) which' with RVV JV, but with a general 
relative sense, as 'at the end of the time that the king ordered them 
to be introduced'; so 1& AV. — DXiaM] >Faw-consec. after time-deter- 
mination, s. Dr., Tenses, §127; cf. v.^°. The obj. of the vb. is the whole 
college of pages, the Sem. syntax being loose in defining antecedents. — 
'<ish] 35 232 evtiictov = ^'^^^^ in conspectit., the orig. rdg. of vs. pre- 
vailing svcivxtov. — 20. 121^3] 35 148 Tcav gri'^a, prob. = orig. Or^. — 
nji3 nD3n] The const, relation is broken by the VSS (also Sa.) with 
'and,' which Mar., Ehr. demand. The parallelisms presented by Behr., 
ip3 3"ij; 8'\ 1DJ7 TDiN 12^, etc., are not pertinent. The const, relation 
may be cumulative, as in the series of constructs Is. 28^, but that is 
poetical syntax. JHMich. considers the case 'emphatica constructio 
synonymorum,' eft. ipSn njD Ps. 16*, xr.:' 'San 31'. The latter case and 
>nNan \v; Ps. 32^ CBMich. regards along with this as superlatives. Hitz. 
interprets as '(practical) wisdom of the (higher) intelligence'; Kamp., 
and Dr. as 'wisdom determined or regulated by understanding.' — cpa] 
Classical Heb. might prefer the impf., but the aorist is justified by Sd; 
cj. an Arab, example from Tabari, given by Reckendorf, Arab. Syntax, 
§7. — HIT" miry] Reduplicative, as e.g., Gen. 43'^; ti is also used to 
express a fraction, e.g., Gen. 47'^; s. GB. BAram. has another expression, 
3''. For the use often' in comparison cf. Gen. 31', Ecc. 7''. — D^cann] 
Outside of Dan. used only of Egj'ptian magicians. Gen. 41', etc. Its 
origin is obscure; as from "jnn 'inscribe' so BDB, Kon., Hwb.; others 
eft. Arab, hartmn, 'snout,' hence 'leader,' e.g., hardtimu 'l-^aumi, 'lead- 
ers of the people,' cf. 'anif, 'that which is in front'; or the 'snufl3er' (s. 
GB) who speaks through his nose. Boissier, PSBA 35, 189, has attempt- 
ed a Sumerian derivation. — aiflirNn] The asyndeton is revised in a few 
MSS and all VSS, except IC'^^'' incantatores magos ; IC must have followed 
orig. ©, which then corroborates 1^. Asyndeton is common in BAram. 
and has often to be restored in ll^ on authority of Grr. This kaitdl form 
only in the Heb. of Dan.; in the Aram. II^n (2'°). It = Akk. asipii 
{asipu?) 'exorciser,' for whose functions s. Jastrow, Rel. Bah. u. Ass., 
Index, S.V., KAT 589. The Akk. ppl. form was retained in BAram., 
but the secondary nom. opificium was developed in Heb., similar to the 


Syr. 'dsopd (s. KAT 590). exaotSof for 'in represents rather 'cn, 
and [Aiyot = 'in. For the earliest use of [lijoq in Gr. s. Meyer, Ur- 
sprimg, 2, 74, n. 74. (S 'sophists and philosophers,' and CDsn is used 
indifferently for one or the other, 2'-- ", etc., Ex. 7"; cf. Hatch, Influ- 
ence of Gr. Ideas, loi; and so Jos. uses 'sophists' of the Pharisees. — 
So 2°] Om. by E^vzt, and OrC, an early variant in 0. At end of the v. 
(35 has a considerable addition, in part parallel to first part; cf. the similar 
additions in Grr. to 3^". — 21. inM] Despite the objection of comm., 
this use of rrrn, 'remained, continued,' is found elsewhere. The present 
phrase is exactly duplicated in Jer. i'; cf. Ruth i- Dtr vnii, 'they remained 
there.' Cf. the translation-Greek of Test. Joseph, 11% 'we were with 
him three months'; and with Bert, the use of laiA^v = l^w(ji.ev, Acts 17-', 
while Ehr. eft. the Talm. use of nin = 'Kve,' e.g., Baba b. i^a. The 
Pesh. freq. tr. (j-^vstv by Nin, e.g., Jn. i'^- '""'is, 2^-. — njj] Geier notes 
that this prep, does not exclude the remoter future, eft. Ps. iio^ 112'. 
— itiid] Also Mss •kJ'io and so Ezr. i^^-. 


(i) 1-16. Neb. is disturbed by a dream, and demands of his 
wise men its interpretation, confounding their artifices in ad- 
vance by requiring first the statement of the dream, 2-11; on 
their confession of inabiUty before so extraordinary a request, 
he issues order for their summary execution, which is respited 
on Dan.'s plea, 14-16. (2) 17-23. Dan. and his friends pray 
for illumination, and the desired revelation is vouchsafed to 
Dan., who offers a confession of praise. (3) 24-45. He asks 
that he be taken in before Neb. to interpret the dream, 24; 
after the initial colloquy with the king, 25-28, Dan. relates the 
dream, 29-35, and then interprets it, 36-45. (4) 46-49. Neb. 
pays divine honors to Dan. and makes confession of his God; 
he advances Dan. to great dignity in his realm, in which honors 
the friends share. 

For the notable part played by royal dreams in ancient his- 
tory reference may be made, for the Mesopotamian field, to 
Jastrow, Rel. Bab. u. Ass., 2, 954^., who cites cases extending 
from Gudea to Asshurbanapal and Nabonidus. Among these 
the most similar to the present dream is that of Gudea's; he saw 
a man whose figure reached from earth to heaven, on his head a 
crown, etc. (s. Thureau-Dangin, Les inscriptions de Sumer et 


d'Akkad, 141, Gudea cylinder A, col. iv). Similarly the Pharaoh's 
dream in the Joseph story, of which the present narrative is 
reminiscent, has its parallels in the Egyptian literature, e.g., in 
a dream of Merneptah's in which he "saw a statue of Ptah 
standing before him ... it was like the height of (?) . . ."; 
also in the dream of Tanutamon.^ Comm., e.g. Dr., eft. the 
symbolical dreams recorded by Herodotus, i, 107 /. 209, iii. 30. 
124, vii, 19, mostly dreams of or concerning Persian monarchs, 
Cyrus, Cambyses, Xerxes, for the interpretation of which the 
dream-interpreters of the Magi (ot ovupoirokot roiv (xdycov) 
were consulted. More particularly for the Saga concerning 
Neb.'s visions we may refer to c. 4; as there so also here we may 
adduce the testimony of the well-informed Abydenos (2d cent. 
B.C.?), contained in Eus., Praep. evan. ix, 41, according to which 
Neb. had an oracle from an unknown god of the calamity to 
come upon his people. Neb.'s visions appear to belong to a 
cycle of legend on which our writer has drawn. Bevan, p, 65, 
n. I, eft. a similar royal dream related in Hisam's Life of Mo- 
hammad, which "appears to have been borrowed in part from 
Daniel, while in other respects it diverges." Our story has a 
literary parallel in Alexander's dream of the Jewish high priest, 
in Jos. A J xi, 8, 5. For the spiritually inferior character of 
dreams, which serve however to exhibit the superior illumina- 
tion of God's saints, and for the extent of dependence upon the 
Joseph story, see Note at end of the chap. 

1-16. Nebuchadnezzar's dream. 1. The contradiction of the 
datum of the second year of the reign of Neb. with the three 
years of schooling that intervened after the deportation of the 
captives, c. i, has given perennial concern to comm. It was 
early seen that some other era must be postulated than that 
based on i^ So Jos., AJ x, 10, 3, identifies the year with the 
second year after the sacking of Egypt; this view is accepted by 
Jer., on the authority of the Jews and citing Jos.; so Polych., 
and Jeph., who calculates that it was the 3 2d year of his reign ( ! ). 
Ra., AEz. make it the second year after the conquest of Jerusa- 
lem in 586. Modern apologetic has generally taken refuge in 
postulating a double reckoning for Neb.'s reign; in i^ he was still 
coregent with his father Nabopolassar, here he is sole monarch; 

'Breasted, Anc. Records of Egypt, vol. 3, no. 582, vol. 4, no. 922, and cf. his 
History of Egypt, pp. 468, 558; s. also Mallon, Orientalia, 3 (Rome, 1921), pp. 70/. 

2^ 141 

so comm. from CBMich. to Behr. Knab. and Dr. call attention 
to the post-dating practice in reckoning royal years in Baby- 
lonia, so that the extra year would be the uncounted accession 
year of Neb. — yielding, to be sure, only 'academic years.' Oth- 
ers have proposed, following Ew., to revise the date, rdg. 'the 
1 2th year,' and this has been accepted by Lenormant, Kamp., 
Pr., Mar., Jahn; cf. the similar omission in Jos. 24^^. Knab. 
suggests that numeral letters were used, y^, the 'ten' being lost; 
but the papyri show that numeral letters were not used. It 
would be simpler to read T\'^ 'six' for DTiti^, and the writer sees 
that Torrey has already made this suggestion. Notes, II, 228. 
There are, however, cases where 'two' has been used to fill 
out a lacuna, e.g., i Sa. 13S ' Saul was . . . years old when he 
began to reign and two years he reigned over Israel'; cf. also 
the datum of 'two years before the earthquake,' Am. i^ First 
an attempt may have been made to introduce a 'year,' and this 
was subsequently filled out with 'year two.' In that case the 
date would be secondary. If it is original and there is intention 
in it, the point might be that it was in his second year, the year 
after Karkemish, that Neb. became lord of the world; so AEz., 
but dating from 586. Of course there may be simple disagree- 
ment with the three years of c. i, that detail with the introduc- 
tory chap, being on the whole secondary to this story. The 
writer was not wholly dependent upon Biblical traditions of 
history, as will appear in the subsequent stories. 

In this second year Neb. had a dream-experience (so the pi. 
niD^n) ; he was agitated in mind (the vb. indicates repeated 
strokes), and his sleep broke [or, went] from him, with EW; GV, 
*dass er aufwachte.' Comparing 6^^ this tr. appears to be in- 
trinsically correct, and with all varieties of interpretation of the 
difficult vb. has been followed by most VSS and comm. Aq. and 
^ alone of the former express the obvious Heb., 'his sleep was 
upon him,' i.e., he fell asleep again. This would imply that he 
forgot the dream, a feature that has been erroneously read into 
VV.3- ^ For interpretation of the vb. s. the Note. 

1. The initial conj. 1 is corroborated by (& Ot^, other VSS om.; it is 
the only case of a story in Dan. beginning with 'and.' mss 62 147 begin 
the chap, with i^^ — The repeated 'Neb.' is represented in (& by para- 
phrase. The first instance is omitted by Ken. 117, ffi, restored by 


OrP-c Lu.; it is required by the date formula. — nio^n] PI. here and 
v.°, sing. V.', and so 05. The VSS and inner variants in variously in- 
troduce the sing. The simplification from pi. to sing, is more likely than 
the reverse process, unless we agree with Ehr. that ni is dittograph of 
the following two letters. The pi. is indefinite, of a dream-state, cf. i", 
the definition of the single dream appearing in v.'; cf. 'visions of my 
head,' 4', 7^ — oyonni] For the accent s. Kon., Lgh., i, 271; v.' Nif. is 
used = Gen. 41*; 1^ has thus included both the earher and the later use 
of stems. The Grr. have experimented with various vbs; B conterritus 
est = Aq., whose rdg. can be restored from Gen. 41', xaTsxTuprj. — 
vSj? nn'Hj] ^ ey^vsTo ax' otuToG, so with variant vbs. Lu., Sym. ( = 36'°8) 
= U; Aq. literally ex' auxdv = &. Hence there is no suspicion of vari- 
ants to ^, except in the Gr. prep, ax which appears to be interpretative. 
A too simple emendation to suggest is pSjjd. With the usual mng. of 
n\T the phrase can only mean 'his sleep was upon him'; and so Jun., 
'when his sleep was upon him,' and Jeph., Calv., 'and sleep came upon 
him,' i.e., he fell asleep again. DeDieu, dEnv. treat the prep, as adver- 
sative, contra eum, i.e., aduersus ei et molestus. CBMich. appears to 
have inaugurated a fresh and favorite understanding of the vb., as 
expressing completion of being and so its termination; he paraphrases, 
"somnus confectus erat ac esse desierat super eo." VLeng. follows Ges., 
'der Schlaf war dahin fiir ihn,' with n\nj in sense of 'fertig, voriiber 
sein,' 'was all over with him' = Eng. tr. of Zock., with vhy as dative, 
as at 6"; so Dr., defining the vb. by actum est, but insisting, after Keil, 
that ^n be taken in its common psychological sense, e.g., Ps. 42*, 'I pour 
out my soul upon me.' But parallelisms with Eng. and German idioms 
are not at all conclusive. Dissatisfaction is expressed by some; Ehr. 
proposes a vb. ■inj (= Arab.) 'forbid,' and Behr., Mar., Jahn, Cha. too 
easily revise the text by rdg. ^f^:, eft. 6''. Grot. tr. 'his dream,' with 
the implication that it had passed from Neb.'s mind, and Haupt renews 
this suggestion on the basis of Akk. hittu 'dream' and tr. 'his dream 
weighed upon him ' ; objection to which is that then we have two words 
for 'dream' in the same period. Another way out of the difficulty rec- 
ommends itself to the writer, following Ra., who eft. Eze. 7-^, and Hav., 
namely to find the rare vb. ^'i^ 'fall' (identical historically with n>n), 
and so 'sleep fell away for me.' With this cf. the repeated •'Piin: at 
8", II with •'PD^nj, 'I was sick,' where the former can mean 'I collapsed'; 
V. ad loc. 

2. 3. Neb. bids the attendance of his wise men 'to tell {i.e., 
interpret) to him his dream,' not only as Pharaoh did in Gen. 
41, but also as v^^as the universal custom in such royal perplexi- 
ties. In the Bab. world there were several classes of adepts who 

2^- ^ 143 

stood at the service of the king, to obtain for him oracles and 
to interpret dreams and omens; s. Jastrow, Rel. Bab. u. Ass., 
c. 19, 'Das Orakelwesen ' ; KAT 604 f.\ and in detail R. C. 
Thompson, The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nine- 
veh and Babylon, igoo. For the Persians there existed similarly 
the Magian dream-interpreters named by Herodotus, v. siip. In 
this passage to the two classes named at i^°, the magicians and 
the enchanters, two others are added, the sorcerers and the 
Chaldaeans. The fourfold listing indicates the levy of the whole 
fraternity on this occasion. The profession denoted by the sor- 
cerers, D''£tl'3, is condemned through the O.T. as representing 
black magic, e.g., Ex. 22^^, or in figurative scenes of immoral 
seduction, e.g.. Is. 47 ^ The Akk. has the same vocabulary for 
the evil sorcerer, esp. the witch, kassapu, kassaptu; kispu, 'be- 
witchment,' etc.; s. Tallqvist, Die ass. Beschworungsserie Maqltl, 
15, KAT I.e. No scruple is felt at relating Dan. with this as 
well as with the other less obnoxious classes (although the sor- 
cerers do not again appear) ; of. 2^^, 4^, 5", in which passages he 
appears as dean of the whole fraternity. But it is to be observed 
that later the rt. ksp was weakened, until in the Syrian Church 
it came to be used of prayer. For the term 'Chaldaeans' s. Int., 
§19,/. In this passage and elsewhere in the bk. the several 
classes of diviners are listed with no technical or exact sense, as 
the variability of the lists shows. Dr. presents the following 
table of these: 

1-° magicians, enchanters. 

2- magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, Chaldaeans. 

2'° any magician, enchanter, Chaldasan. 

2*' wise men, enchanters, magicians, diviners. 

4*'^' magicians, enchanters, Chaldaeans, diviners. 

5'' enchanters, Chaldaeans, diviners. 

5" magicians, enchanters, Chaldaeans, diviners. 

5'* wise men, enchanters. 

Various classes of Bab. soothsayers are similarly enumerated 
in Sib. Or., 3, 218^.; and so also 'magicians, astrologers and 
soothsayers' in some VSS of the Ahikar Legend, s. Conybeare, 
etc.. Story of Ahikar, p. Iviii. 

2. NipS] & ■K(xkiaxi, Lu. Q al. xaXlaaxe. — follows (S in rendering 
the classes of adepts: £icaotSo{, [xiyoi, (pap^axof, %aXSafot, but avoids 


the latter's literal error in construing the last term as gen. to the pre- 
ceding ones. — TijnS] Classical Heb. would prefer i;?dS with inf.; s. GK 
§114 p. For the mng. 'tell,' 'interpret' cf. Gen. 41^^; of interpretation of 
a riddle Ju. 14^^ etc. — 3. \nDSn mSn] We may compare the interesting 
dream fragment in CIS ii, no. 137, B, 1. i, nnn oSn iSn ijjd; this also 
illuminates 4', q.v. — 'Ji nj'ijni] The VSS render freely this psychologi- 
cal phrase. 

4. The several classes of wise men are summed up in the 
comprehensive term ' Chaldaeans ' ; so also below. Both 'magi- 
cians,' 4^, and 'wise men,' e.g., v.*^, are similarly used. These 
are said to have responded to the king 'in Aramaic,' so JV cor- 
rectly; (5 (Tvpiari, H syriace, = AV 'in Syriack,' RV 'in the 
Syrian language.' Through combination of this datum and !■* 
'Chaldaic' came into Christian use, first in a gloss to C5 2'^^, and 
then in Jer., e.g., Praef. in Dan., 'chaldaicus sermo'; so GV 'auf 
Chaldaisch'; and 'Heb. and Chaldee' were the current names 
for the O.T. languages into the latter half of the 19th cent. 
For the various translation names of the Aramaic dialects s. 
Dalm., Gr., pp. i f. Oppert first suggested {Elements de la gram- 
maire assyrienne, i860 — s. Haupt in Kamp. for bibliography, 
and Nestle, Marg., 39) that TT'DIS 'in Aramaic' is a gloss, a 
marginal note indicating the change of language; he has been 
followed by Knab., Bev., Haupt (vs. Kamp.), Pr., Mar., Cha., 
and this view appears preferable. For arguments for originaUty 
see dEnv., pp. 127 ff., Behr., Kamp. For the introduction here 
of Aramaic s. §21, b. Against Oppert's view, accepted by his 
followers in this point, that JT'ISIX is equally to be elided in 
Ezr. 4^, see Meyer, Entstehung d. Judentums, 1 7 f. — O king, live 
forever. Cf., along with the same formula in Heb., but in the 3d 
pers., I Ki. i^^; Neh. 2^, the common Akk. formula, e.g., 'May 
Nebo and Marduk give long days and everlasting years unto 
X my lord' (cited by Pr. from BA i, p. 239). Zock. eft. similar 
forms of address to kings and magnates: Judt. 12*, ' May thy soul 
live'; ^lian, Varia historia, i, 31, BaatXev 'Apra^ep^-rj^ Bl ala)vo<; 
fiaaiXevoL^-^ Q. Curtius, vi, 5, 'Tu rex (Alexander) perpetua fe- 
licitate floreas'; and the phrase was current in the later Pers. 

4. n-'GiN] So pointed 2 Ki. 18-', Is. 36", Ezr. 4', in sense of aramaice, 
but with gentilic mng. always •'DIn. (so one MS here, Bar). As Nold. 

2^ 145 

remarks, SG p. 80, note, the second vowel is artificial, formed as though 
from 'ardm, not the orig. 'aram or 'arm. (On Akk. forms of the name s. 
Schiffer, Die Aramder, 14.) The same word occurs in APA pap. K, 11. 4. 
6, where it is similarly adverbial, nimx . . . Nipc. Staerk in his small 
edition rightly notes this as a case of the Aram. (Syr.) adverbial form, 
and that it should be pointed 'armdyit; another case of this adverbial 
form I note is n^Jisn APO pap. i, 1. 5, s. also Note on vz'i-\ri 6^ M 
points here Hebrew- wise. Sa. tr. 'in Nabataean.' Haupt thinks that a 
preceding ncNM has been suppressed here. — Tii^j;] I.e., 'abdaik, for 
which 5^r. here and in similar cases almost universally 'abddk ; s. Kau., 
§53, Anm. b, and for similar variations in later Aram., Dalm., Gr., p. 109, 
cf. Nold., MG §141. — Nitre] = H; 4MSS nniyc = (S + auxou = OrPc 
Lu. & U. This uncertainty persists through the chap, and without uni- 
formity in the several authorities. In the papyri the emphatic is always 
in N, which Jewish scribes often arbitrarily replaced with n; then the 
reverse process also took place, n for n. The phenomena are primitive, 
as the VSS show. — xinj, Bar ninj] Final n for ■"/? vbs. is supported 
without exception by Sachau's papp., s. his statistics, p. 271. Both ^^r- 
and ^^r are read (the latter as in pause (?), s. Kau., §47, g, 3, a), the 
latter preferred by Bar, s. his text at vv.'- '^*. Mar., Gr. §65, c, has 
rightly recognized that the Pa. pointing is erroneous: the Haf. frequently 
occurs, e.g., v.^, and our pointing as Pa. (the usage in Syr.) has arisen 
in those cases where preform, n was suppressed. Torrey, Notes, I, 253, 
regards this emendation as preposterous: but M is wont to distinguish 
forms arbitrarily after the varieties in Kt. 

5. The king responded, The thing is certain with me, so JV; vs. 
AV RVV, 'The thing is gone from me' (RWmg, 'The word is 
gone forth from me'); GV, 'Es ist mir en tf alien.' The mng. of 
the sentence depends upon the debatable K"tT^^, which has been 
interpreted both as adj. and vb. The eldest interpretation is 
that of the Grr., airearrj^ followed by their daughter VSS, B, 
and countenanced by some Jewish comm.; one tradition of M. 
enforces it by pointing the word to give it the appearance of a 
vb. But the explanation of the word as a vb., both as to root 
and form, is most dubious. The other interpretation, correctly 
adopted by JV is that of ^, followed by some Jewish comm.: 
'The thing, matter, is sure on my part.' The word in question, 
an adj., is now generally recognized as of Pers. origin. The 
phrase is thus equivalent to «n^J2 S'D^::'' 6^^ and nmn |lDi 
DTI^S DyiD Gen. 41". The king's alternative is that if they 

do not tell both dream and interpretation, Ye shall be cut in pieces 



and your houses he made ruins (so rather than a dunghill). In 
such a story as this it is not necessary to debate whether the 
barbarous order is another proof of the falsity of the history, 
with Bert., or not, as others hold, citing cases of similar Oriental 
despotism, so dEnv. at length, with instances stretching down 
to the English Protestants and the French Terror. In qua ro- 
mance, the item has true flavor, and we may recall, as possibly 
the narrator did, the wholesale massacre of the Magi by Darius I, 
resulting in their almost complete extermination (Her., iii, 79). 
The king is simply represented as demanding with grim humor 
that they satisfy his curiosity on his own terms and imposing 
the common penalty for disobedience to the royal command. 
The penalty is that of destruction of person and property; cf. 
Ezr. 6"- '^^. The drastic character of the Assyrian-Babylonian 
punishments is gruesomely represented in the Assyrian bas- 
reliefs, and detailed in the codes of Babylonia and Assyria. For 
the recently discovered Assyrian Code s. Jastrow, JAOS 192 1, 
pp. I f., and for a summary p. 7; for the dismemberment of 
enemies, Beatrice A. Brooks, A Contribution to the Study of the 
Moral Practices of Certain Social Groups in Ancient Mesopotamia, 
Lpzg., 1921, pp. 14 jf. The present severity is not, with Heng. 
{Authentic, 36), a proof of the Babylonian atmosphere of the 
book. As Hav. rightly holds, the practice of dismemberment 
was 'wide-spread in the whole Orient,' and he illustrates from the 
practice of the Hebrews, Persians, Greeks and Romans. For 
this penalty we have evidence from the age of the Maccabees 
and the history of Herod {v. inf.). As to the treatment of the 
criminals' property in this instance, it is a question whether, 
with the majority opinion, their houses were to be made 'a 
dunghill,' i.e., ultimately a public privy, or were to be destroyed. 
For Oriental custom the former interpretation can be abundantly 
illustrated, as, e.g., in the profanation of the Baal temple, 2 Ki. 
10". Hav. adduces many instances from Oriental history in 
which a sacred building was thus profaned by edict, e.g., Abu 
'1-Fida's account of Omar's covering the Holy Places in Jerusa- 
lem with dung, whence the current satirical perversion of the 
Church al-Kiydmah (the Resurrection) into al-Kumdmah (dung). 
But this is not the most ancient interpretation nor the sole tra- 
dition of Jewish comm. In its form the dubious word '^{M is 

obviously Akk., and it is to be related to a common Akk. root, 

2^ 147 

'to destroy.' The bodies of the refractory wise men were to be 
dismembered their houses pulled down. 

5. (^Lu.lS pref. 'and,' against usage, cf. vv.'- i", 3»- 1«.— "J.3i] Nold., 
GGA 1884, p. 1021, appears to have been the first to suggest that this 
should be pointed as perf., ^^'i ; this is substantiated by the pi. phrase 
|ii::n'1 u;* five times in cc. 2. 3, only once ]ncNi ]'y; ^-*. The suggestion 
is followed by Behr., Kamp., Mar., Lohr, Ehr. The same idiom is 
abundant in early Syr., Curetonian and Peshitto VSS, Bardesanes, 
Aphraates, etc., but is not particularly noticed in the Syr. grammars; 
Kau., §76, d, is inadequate. However Torrey, Notes, I, 264/., puts in a 
caveat against text emendations, and indeed both constructions appear 
in classical Syr. — ncxi] = (6, ignored by (B Q Hipp" al. 21), suppUed 
by OrP; this amendment inserted by Lu. after XaXSafot?. — Nnro Kt., 
""^If? Kr.] So generally but inconsequently in iSl in treatment of gen- 
tilics, s. Kau., §11, i, b. The weakening of 1 to n is EAram. One object 
in writing the Kr. form may have been to distinguish between the 
otherwise identical sing, and pi., conveniently distinguished in Syr. by 
a diacritical point. — nn?c] But snSn v.*. In the papyri the emph. st. is 
always in n — ; the fem. is in n — , with exception of a very few cases; s. 
APO 264 /. This evidence would indicate that the confusion of dis- 
tinction between s and n in 1^ is not original. For the statistics of « 
and n respectively for the emph. and fem. endings in BAram. s. Powell, 
Siipp. Hebr., pp. 8 ff. These show that the rules of the papyri are pre- 
dominantly followed. It has not been noticed by Powell and others 
that equivalence of N and n existed in certain late Jewish writings, and 
in cases the dominance of n where Aram, use would demand n, e.g., the 
Samaritan Aram, dialect and Jewish magical texts from Babylonia as 
well as from Palestine. For similar variations of spelling in v/S roots s. 
at 2'- 16.— f<ll?< Mich., Str., Kit., ^11'? Bar] Also v.^. The latter point- 
ing as ppl. (hardly Hebraism for 3d sing, fem.) is due to alleged deriva- 
tion from a root nrN = Sin, 'go.' So die' eiioO d-Kioirj = (S v.* (lacuna 
here) H Ra., Jeph. Such a root appears in Talm. (in one case of 'escap- 
ing the memory'), but the text of the cases is uncertain, Stn appearing 
often as a variant (s. Talm. lexx.), so that iin was probably manufac- 
tured from the Bibl. word. Its occurrence in Syr., PSmith, col. 105, 
would have the same origin. Withal a ppl. (attempted in Biir's pointing) 
is not pertinent for a preterite. While i may be philologically exchange- 
able with S, yet our bk. otherwise knows only StN; see Kau., p. 63. For 
survey of early views s. CBMich. Of later philologists Hitz. compared 
Arab, wasada, 'be firm'; Fried. Del. suggested an Akk. etymology, 
which has been generally rejected. But there exists another ancient 
tradition of interpretation, which goes back to ft, translating the word 


by ^arrir, 'sure.' Also it is found in Talm. in sense of 'determined, 
decreed,' and this mng. is given by AEz. Sa. tr., 'the matter is in 
earnest with me.' Nold., in a communication to Schrader, COT ad loc, 
diagnosed the word as Pers. azdd (anticipated by Hitz. in his compari- 
son of 02c?d). Andreas, in Lidz. ,£/)/(., 2, 214, n. 2 (also in Mar.'s Glossary) 
precises the word as Mid. Pers. azd, 'news.' This is in the way of inter- 
pretation of irN as found in Euting's Strassburg Pap3Tus (repeated in 
APO p. 26, AP no. 27). In B, I. 3 is read -i3yn> nrx jn, which Euting 
translates, 'si certium factum erit [a iudicibus].' As a component it 
appears in nsitN, APO pap. 5, 11. 5. 7, where Sachau tr. 'Bekannt- 
macher.' Torrey, Notes, I, p. 253, objects against Andreas that neither 
in Dan. nor in the Strassburg Pap. can (x)"iin mean 'news,' but only 
'sure,' in which he is right. His treatment of the present form as adj. 
fem. is, however, open to objection. The opinion of Scheftelowitz, cited 
with approval by Kon., Ewb., that the word comes from Pers. azda, 
'gegangen,' is now upset by the papyri. Cf. NnumN Dan. 3^ '•. Nobilius, 
cited by Field, notes a reading 'of the Syrian,' dtxax? tie. The argument 
of some that ^^9 is incongruous with Nold.'s derivation is fallacious; 
JO 'on side of,' is common in spatial relations, s. BDB p. 5786, and is 
so used psychologically Nu. 32^^, Job 4^^; in Mand. and NSyr. in<aj? 
s. Nold., MG p. 193. — ••Jjiynnn] V.' ■'j:j;iinn, similarly 4'. In the 
papyri is a case of the spelling plene njmpi, APO no. 73, 1. 18, p. 223. 
For H > u in the sharpened syllable cf. Arab. Energ. pi. yaktulunna. — 
n-jro] = (& OrPC Lu. Hipp'« & B; nt^q mss Ken., deR. = ©.— pann] 
For the Pers. word, early domesticated in Aram, dialects s. Lexx. Of 
VSS & alone understands the phrase, st? dxw>v(av easoGe (so also 
386) = ■)!_ (^^ correctly at 3"^ StayLEXtaOTjoexat, here xapaSstY(xaTca6i^- 
aeaGs, 'be made an example of,' as rdg. I^'PI''"" = xap4:Sety[Aa. 
For the phrase cf. 2 Mac. i'^ \i.i\-f] xotTjffavTsq, Jos. AJ xv, 8, 4 pLsXiail 
lizkhyxzc, (of Herod's penalties). — P3"'n3] = gyr. as well as Ileb. pi. 
Kau.'s condemnation of the dag. f. as a 'Hebraism' is unintelligible. 
Mar., Gr. §8, c, and Brock, VG §123 Anm., prefer to regard the dag. as 
abnormal lene not forte ; cf. Kon., Lgh., 2, 55, BL §19, d. — :]}] Also 
3^' = iSu Ezr. 6". The common interpretation is 'dunghill,' and for 
such a penalty cf. 2 Ki. lo^^; so Ra., R. Joshua in AEz., Eng. VSS, all 
recent comm. Support for this is the alleged NiTiSu in Targum II to 
Est. 8'^ (cited by Paton ad loc, p. 279), but this is a quotation of our 
passage and is of no authority. The alleged abstract ending is hardly 
suitable for such a concrete mng., and the Rabb. mng. of the root, 'be 
repulsive,' is not conclusive. The eldest interpretation is that of (&, 
avaXT)(f>OT)asTo» u[X(I)v xa uxapxovra e{<; -zh Pa(jt>v[x.6v (=1 Esd. 6") = 
3^' ST)iJ.£uOT)ffSTac = Ezr. 6'^ xh xax' k\Lk TC0[if)6i^aeTat[ (where iSij, not iVu, 
was read, and -i understood as mihi), i.e., confiscation. Jeph. fol- 
lows this interpretation, 'will be confiscate to the sultan,' evidently 

2^-^^ 149 

comparing Arab, ndla 'present gift, possess'; and so Sa., 'booty.' Tor- 
rey, ZA 26, 80, has followed the same clew with similar translation; he 
discovers the rt. Vij in Phoen. in the Tabnit Inscr., 1. 7. The present 
writer prefers the ancient interpretation of StapxayifjaovTac = jiDttTi^ >Sij 
(in place of this Q 228 simply zic, SiapxaYTiv)= ^, and so AEz. 
This might be supported by Jensen's identification with a supposed 
Akk. root nawdlu ruin, KB 6, i, p. 363, accepted by the Lexx. But it 
is preferable to identify it directly with the common Akk. root nabdlu, 
'destroy.' Then the final vowel can be explained as the Akk. case end- 
ing and the word is a sheer borrowing; it should accordingly be accented 
mil'e!, nabdlu/i. The same is true of ''''^'"'■f Kt., 'V*"'7 '^r. Ezr. 7=".— 
jiDU'n''] "Yhe grammarians of the Syr. regard such an Etpee! as primarily 
Ettafal. But as BAram. had not acquired the Ettafal, it is best to re- 
gard this as a proper Etpeel development. Against the present vocaliza- 
tion the expected i-vowel appears in Vl^''. 4', and as APO pap. 53, 1. 2, 
offers DiBTii, it is most probable that here and in °'^!^\ Ezr. 4-^ the vocali- 
zation should be I'"2^9"'-, etc., as in Syr.; absence of the vowel consonant 
induced the other pointing. 

6-9. Neb. balances his threat with the promise of royal lar- 
gesse and honor if the wise men succeed in telling the dream as 
well as the interpretation. The latter, v.^, repeat their request 
in a somewhat more respectful tone, but, w.®- ^, the king breaks 
out in exasperation at them; they are only seeking a respite be- 
cause they realize the capital danger they are in; they hope for 
some way out of the dilemma if time be given, either by con- 
cocting some false and base reply, or counting on delay to annul 
their emergency. He repeats his demand; otherwise the one in- 
exorable sentence remains for them all. V.^*" is to be read in 
the same period with v.' (ignored by most translations, correctly 
JV) : because ye know thai the decree has gone forth that if, etc. 

10. 11. The wise men make one more appeal: no monarch, 
however potent, ever made such a demand on any class of 
adepts; such knowledge is confined to superhuman beings. Cf. 
Hesiod (ed. Teubner, 1902, frag. 169, p. 183), MaVrt? S'ouSei'; 
icTTLV eTri')(6ov[oiv avOpcairwv "Ocrrt? av eiSeiT] Zr]v6<; voov 
ai,yLO)(^oto. 12. The king vouchsafes no answer but issues his 
edict, which is put in the hands of the Provost Marshal of the 
court for execution (cf. v.^^). 13. Dan. and his compatriots are 
equally sought for destruction along with the rest of the frater- 
nity. It was not to be a Sicilian Vespers but a formal execution 


under the proper officials and in the appointed place, hence the 
first purpose of the officials was to assemble the condemned. 
Despite one line of interpretation, represented by © and H, exe- 
cution of the order had not begun when Dan. received notice of 
the sentence. 

6. '13J3J] Swpia? = H, Orc Swplav, S> 'wealth'; (S tr. 'aji pnc 
by SifiotTo: TCavxoTToia (finding njna?). It is generally recognized as 
some technical name for gifts. Andreas in Mar., Gr.^, compared MPers. 
fiibhez i-dz), leaving na — unexplained; but he is cited by Lidz., Eph., 

2, 226, as denying that he can explain it from the Iranian. Tisdall, JQR 

3, 168, claims an error for Pers. nibaztta {cf. (S's rdg.). The word has 
been taken into the Targums, s. Jastr., s.v. A word i^j occurs in the 
Sam. (Targ. Lev. 16*") = Snu, which Cowley supposes to be taken 
from Arab, nabada ; but it appears frequently in PalSyr. = y.Xf]po<;, 
and Schulthess's random suggestion (Lex.) of identification with Syr. 
N.iXfl. HDD 'lot' from rt. ysi deserves approval; for yd: > t3j cf. Nold., 
MG §§47. 48. It is found in Mand., Euting, Qolasta, no. xliii = Lidz., 
Mand. Liturgien, p. 76, in sense of 'pieces' of the liturgy. And finally 
it has appeared in the papp., APA pap. L, 1. 6 (s. Cowley's note, AP), 
but with the apparent sense of 'quittance,' and Perles relates it to our 
BibUcal word, OLZ 15, 219. But it is strange that the extraordinary 
form of our word, if in error, should be included in the variant form at 
S'^ ^not3J, q.v. — "'Dip jc] = Heb. ■'Jdd, a term of indirection for the 
royal person. — I^',] The two current interpretations of the word are 
instanced from antiquity: (i) 'but,' 0dRa., Jeph., JV; (2) 'therefore,' 
(gs H Sa., AV RVV. The former = Id he7i = Syr. 'did, Arab. 'Hid, 'if 
not'; it appears inf. vv."- '°, 3*^ 6"- *• ", Ezr. 5'^, also in the papyri, etc. 
Meaning (2), which later vanished from Aram., appears in the Teima 
Inscr., CIS ii, no. 113 (Lidz., NE p. 447, Cooke, NSI p. 195) 11. 8. 10 and 
in Heb. in Ru. i" bis (questioned by some). This meaning is demanded 
here, v.^ 4^*. For the proposed explanations of lahen, 'therefore,' see 
the Lexx. and grammars, and especially Torrey's survey and criticism, 
Notes, I, pp. 255 ff. Noldeke's and Stade's view that it = la-hinna {cf. 
Arab., ob haec) he properly subjects to the condemnation that in 
Aram, we should expect le, not Id; he holds to the view that the word 
is the same in both cases and that "the use of this compound covered 
more shades of meaning in western Aramaic than elsewhere, extending 
through the whole series: 'unless, except, but, only, however, then, 
accordingly, therefore.' " But he does not explain how this extraordi- 
nary expansion took place. Retaining his principle, we may regard 
lahen as from Id 'not,' and hen 'behold,' used interrogatively, 'is it 
not, lo?' That is, the two uses developed from the two nmgs. of hen as 

26-13 j^j 

'behold' and (secondarily) 'if.' The compound in the latter sense pre- 
dominated and ultimately suppressed the other sense 'therefore.' — 
7. nrjr] For the const, fem. used adverbially in Aram, dialects s. 
Nold., MG p. 20I, SG p. 96; similarly '^l'^ 6''. — icx^] Change from 
impv. of V.' expresses appropriate humility; <S, followed by Lu., reverts 
to the impv.— '"ITS, also mss Niro] Read as ^T-^^ by OrPC Lu. ^ "U. 

8. ^V^,] See at v.^ — 3'x^ p] 'Of a surety'; the adj. also v.*^, 3^^, 6". 
Cf. arp p v.*'. — pj2r pnjs mr;] (5 xatpbv u[ieiq l^ayopiil^sTe; cf. 
Col. 4', -ubv y.otipbv i^oLyoga'C,6[j.eyoi = Eph. s''. §> here 'you ask for 
time,' Syr. to the Epp. 'buying your opportunity' {kersa <Y.xip6q). 
Since Geier the distinction between the use in Dan. and in Paul has 
been observed; in the latter in sense of making the most of time or 
opportunity ('going into the market and buying up time'), = emere 
tempus (Cicero, Verres, i, 3, and so here SI H tempus rcdimere); in Dan. 
in sense of 'gaining time,' i.e., respite (dEnv.). Paul's use does not bind 
the interpretation here, as S> correctly saw. — ^?i'?:^?] M apparently as 
though 'all because,' and so still Kon., Uii'b., p. 598, Lgh., ii, 2, §339 r, 
'ganz entsprechend.' Luzzatto, Gr. §123, first correctly diagnosed the 
vocable as = '^?C:T-t > • -C;:?- — For the shifting of the vowel cf. Syr. 
lul}dam < le -\- kudam, and lukbal, but with suff. le^uhleh. Luzz. cfl. 
no;; ih EccI. 5^^ = JAram; the distinction into two words may have 
been induced by a number of Rabb. phrases, e.g., !51 ;, quanta magis, 
n.^ ^?, tiihilominiis tamen, etc., s. Buxt., Lex., 1045. Mar. alone of the 
comm. notes the revision but does not revise his text accordingly. 
Torrey, Notes, I, p. 256, objects to regarding ffl's division as 'erroneous'; 
but there is no evidence of such division in the VSS, and the later ten- 
dency was to split up long vocables; see on 'Nebuchadnezzar' i^ For 
the accumulation of preps, s. Kon., Zg5.,ii, i, §112, 6. For the form ^fez^Je/ 
Bev. proposes original diminutive ^ubail = Arab, kubaila, and eft. Syr. 
tehel a.s <tuhaita (against this position Brock., VG 1, §137, Anm. 3). 
Similar instances are found in Reckendorf, Arab. Syntax, p. 221. — 
n Sop So] With VSS 'because'; Bev. eft. Aram, njo in n SopS {CIS ii, no. 
164, 1. 2); so usual mng. of the phrase, or 'according as,' vv.^^- ", ex- 
cept 5^^, where = 'despite.' 

9. p n] The Grr., B understand as introducing a new period: siiv 
or i&v ouv, si ergo, and so most comm. g» ]H-^, 'that if,' = Sa., Ra., cor- 
rectly diagnosed the syntax as continuing the period from v.' ; this in- 
terpretation was renewed by Klief. and followed by Dr., Mar., Cha., JV. 
— JOPT N^n mn] So g» literally = Or? ev laxi Siyfxa u[j.(I)v = Lu. = B 
una est de nobis sententia, = Jewish comm. The Grr. fell down here. 
(S has apparently a doublet. has olSa (finding j?T' in pom?) and 
proceeds, oxt JjTiixa iJ/euSdc;, v.-ik. The Pers. word means primarily 'law, 
judgment, sentence.' The rival rendering, based on a secondary mng. 


of the word, 'one is your purpose,' is vigorously defended by vLeng., 
after predecessors. The word has the secondary mng. of 'personal 
judgment' in Syr., but there is no reason to abandon the constant Bibl. 
mng., e.g., v.". — rnn] 'One and only,' cf. Song 6', injv n\t phn. — ^?P?. 
Kau.'s supplementary note, Gr. p. 175, that this word is prob. a noun, 
is borne out by Targ. '^'?"1?, 'he.' Similarly nn-'n:* is nominal (fem. = 
neut.), with Behr., GB.— tinjDtn Kt.] This may be Haf. I^J'?','?, so Str., 
or Etpa. with assimilation of tz = zz as in Heb.; Kr., with MSS, I'"^Jp.Un 
Bar, or f'^^P']','? Gin. The form without assimilation is correct in S3T. 
The Aram, corresponds to Nif. of Heb. i;7\ — •J-\:i<^] For the impf. of 
result, as in Heb. and Arab., cf. Kau., §102. — 10. in^s] So Mich., Str., 
Gin., Kit.; "iPN Bar, on Mass. authority; but the papyri have tiin. — 
^'7^'?'] Orig. yabeUd, with holding of 2d rad.; so with Barth, Nh., §93, 
a, vs. Kau., §59, i, b, as from base haUH; however cf. Heb. ^^V- 
Syr. yabld occurs in the same secondary sense of 'the earth,' e.g., i Mac. 
8'-. — ndSd nSc] The ace, as very often in BAram., precedes the 
vb. in a relative clause; cf. Akk. syntax. The point is not noticed 
in Kau. and Mar. — ■?^''] Kenn. cites 3MSS S3'', 3MSS Si3>. In 5^* 
Sam his, where l^^r. • "^O; in 3-' -T- Sdv is prob. to be corrected as 
a Hebraism (in papp. only S31, etc.), to be corrected with Kautzsch, 
Mar., Lohr. The form is defended by Behr., Powell, Supp. Hebr., 
§65, Torrey, Notes, I, 256. But it is likely that there was meant 
here the ppl. ■?', as at v." {cf. mss ^'t), so Syr. me'skah. — IvP] 
This belongs to a class of nouns which, not consistently, exhibit 
the Heb. segholate formation. They are: (i) found in abs. not in const. 
m- D!;n. nj.vp). p.p; (2) in abs. and const. ^2'^; (3) abs. ^^.% const, l'^?; 
(4) with variant forms in abs. and const., OJ??? abs. and const., also 
OV.^ const.; o„? abs. and const., also °.,? const.; (5) const, alone ""^U. 
Also note t^.?l?. In the case of a>'a we find the two forms in the same 
v., Ezr. 6l^ ^)^, =>:"^, and ^T^ W?, with Nold., LCB 1896,' 305, a 
purely scribal distinction; the Heb. form is more appropriate to the 
divine decree! For dVx, const. °vv appears in 3^'^- of the image, but 
°-? in "■niijjx dSx 3^' of the king's face, again apparently an artificial 
distinction. It may be observed that most of these nouns are also good 
Hebrew. Kau., §54, i, is inclined to the view that these segholate forms 
are Hebraisms. Nold. denies this, ZDMG 22, 475, and so Powell, §52. 
— □•'Sci 3T ^SD So] Read with M's punctuation and JV the two last 
words as adj's. to the first, i.e., 'no puissant monarch.' <& 'every king 
and every dynast'; 'every great king and ruler.' Sym. finds three 
classes, 'any king or great one or authoritative,' and is followed by 
Grot., AV RW (latter with mg. giving first interpretation). — ']VH^ 
>nB'ji] The conjs. are supported by (g Or^ & B; © om. 'and' 1°; Orc 
Lu. om. 'and' 1° and 2°. For the idiomatic asvndeton construction cf. 

26-13 j^3 

i-^ The vocalization HV^^" is assured, but ppl. 1^'J>' is expected = Akk. 
dsipii. The customary Hsting of it under katal is impossible, and com- 
parison with BAram. ■'?9 is illegitimate. N.b., the Aram, represents 
the Akk. word, while the Heb. Tf^ (s. at i-°) offers an Aram, formation. 
11. nn^p''] 'Heavy,' (5 ^apuq H grauis, i.e., 'difficult,' so JV. AEz. 
eft. Ps. 49^ D'^J'DJ ina i|-]M 'too difficult is their ransoming'; Behr. 
cjl. Ps. 139'^. AV RVV have 'a rare thing,' a sense found in Syr., not 
appropriate here. (5 has pczpuc (doublet from 0) xal sxcSo^oi;. Poss. 
in APO pap. 54, 1. i, •'H m^pi jnSwxS ^n; we should tr., 'even for God 
it is too difficult.' — njm^] The correct Afel form; s. at v.*. — pnSs] It 
is possible that 'n is sing, in sense, 'God'; cf. the divine epithet ]^:v^'; 
7", etc.; the pi. pron. suff. following is then due to grammatical attrac- 
tion, even as Heb. aTiSs is often construed with pi. vb. In the papyri the 
pi. N^n^N is found construed with a sing, vb., e.g., APO pap. 56, 1. i, and 
so in the subsequent text pnSs = 'God'; this point is recognized by 
Lidz., Eph., 3, 255, Epstein, ZATW 32, 145; the former rightly notes 
that the history of the use is not of Jewish origin. See further Notes at 
3''- "S 5'^- For the very ancient use of the pi. for the sing., going back 
to Akk. ildni, s. Hehn, Die bibl. u. bah. GoUesidee, 1913, c. 4, and for the 
pertinent cases in the papyri his Nachtrdge, pp. 395 /. For the transla- 
tion of APO pap. 56, 1. I see my note OLZ 191 2, 536. Here (& expresses 
by a sing., aYyeXoc;, cf. 3''-', and so the Jewish comm. interpret. — 
pn-nc] With the original vowel; also iin 4--, etc.; cf. Powell, p. 34. — 
xitt'3] For the contrast of flesh with the divine, spiritual, cf. Gen. 6', 
Is. 31', etc. The N.T. idea of aap^ is founded on that of the O.T. in John 
as well as in Paul. — >mn^N] Ace. to Kau., §67, 8, the suffix is 'pleonastic,' 
but it is frequent in Syr. and usual or demanded there in certain com- 
binations, e.g., when subj. precedes; s. Nold., SG §303. — 12. hot Sap Sa] 
t6t£ = &; H quo aiidito ; (6 paraphrases {cf. v.^°) oOev oux IvSIx^txi 
yev^aOott xaOaxep oVet; Or^ xaxevav-ut toutou affixed to the gloss from 
plus of (&, which also appears in Lu. Cf. the VSS at v.^. — Dja] 'Was 
angry,' = S* EVV. The root is found in Targ. Yer., etc., with the adj. 
D^j3, and is supported by Sam. d:d, Targ. to Dt. 32^' (Hitz., Mar.). 
ev Ou;X(T) = B, i.e., as Dj -(- 2, in consequence ignoring the conj. in idni, 
in this following (&. This is the interpretation of Ra., AEz. (not of Sa.), 
1?T3, who eft. Targ. Gen. 40^ pDDj = ^ aisyr, followed by Behr., 
and by Pr. comparing Akk. nasdsu, also a Heb. root. In addition to the 
support for verbal dj3 and the difficulty of treatment of it as nominal, 
DDj means 'be sick, grieve' in all dialects, never 'be angry.' — main'?] 
Bar alone NiainS; after the papp. the former correct. — 13. '^Hf.^] 
Uniquely for expected ^P^h—Q xb S6y|j.a e^^XOsv = Lu. 2^.—V^''^.PPi^] 
Bar alone V'^?.~^. The former is corroborated by the Pa. v.-^ Cor- 
rect accordingly the following i?apnn to Etpa. Cf. the variant forms of 
ftf jano 3' and 3^'. The ppl. is gerundive, 'were to be killed,' ef. Kau., 


§76, 3, Mar., Gr. §102, e. d recognized this; tr. by impf. The 
gerundive interpretation is accepted by Sa., EVV Bert., al., and recent 
comm. For the similar use of ppl. pass, in Syr. s. Duval, GS §331, d, 
Nold., SG §278, A. So also in Bibl. Gr., Acts 2*' 1. aw^^otAevou? = salu- 
andos. The ppl. with 'and' replaces the usual Sem. impf.-juss. of pur- 
pose; cf. Kau., §102, and below at v.'' for similar use of inf. Exactly 
the same construction is found in the Gr. of Acts 15-'. — ^'y'^] Imper- 
sonal = pass. cf. vv.'^- ^°, etc., especially 4-, and Kau., §96, i, c. The 
same use appears in Akk., viz. in the Assyrian Law Code, s. Jastrow, 
JAOS 41, 14, n. 27; and in N.T., e.g., Jn. 12'^, Lu. 12-°, Rev. 12^ etc.; 
also a favorite construction in Mishna, s. Bev. at v.'". Behr. eft. the 
use of this vb. in Targ. Jon. i^*, NijnN'? n^^ ndSx, 'the ship was going 
to be broken' (Heb. ^}'i'^), so customarily in NSyr., Nold; Gram. d. 
neusyr. Sprache, p. 295; Ehrl. adds to this argument with passages from 
Talm., and interpreting cpj, Gen. 43^° similarly. But the primary mng. 
is adequate here, and we may compare Tob. i" Ixtyvouq oxi ^TQTouixat 
dicoGaveiv, which corroborates Mar.'s suggestion that the Peil ^>!? might 
be understood here. 

14. 15. Dan. displayed his good 'sense and prudence,' a char- 
acteristic of the Biblical saints, by taking the matter up directly 
with the Chief Executioner or Provost-Marshal Arioch, whose 
name belongs to the Jewish literary tradition. He inquires the 
cause of the 'peremptory' decree. It is not explained why Dan. 
was not present in the audience before the king; but a good 
story does not explain every detail. 16. The difficulty of this v., 
felt by some translators, d^ Lu., and prob. to be corrected ace. 
to ^, has been adequately recognized among the comm. by 
Ehr. alone. How did Dan. enter the king's presence without 
official intervention {cf. the story in Est.), especially since sub- 
sequently, vv.^*-^^, he requires the aid of Arioch to present him 
to the king? Hav. supposes that Arioch presented him duly 
on this occasion; but now rather than later the terms of the 
etiquette are desiderated, while these terms in v.^^ are much 
belated. Now and ^ ignore 1 ^y 'went in and,' and it is 
plausible that the omission represents the original text; the re- 
quest for delay could have been transmitted by Arioch. Or with 
Ehr., making that omission and rdg. nJD 'of him,' for ^'zh'l^ JD 

'of the king,' the respite may have been granted informally by 
Arioch. Sa. meets the difficulty with a paraphrase: 'D. caused 
(tasabbaba) that he asked.' However ® read l|. The respite is 
asked by Dan. with the engagement that he would satisfy the 

214-16 ,55 

king with the interpretation of his dream. He exhibits the same 
calm assurance as in cc. i. 6. 

14. f.l**?] For sjTicope of « s. Kau., §ii, 3, b, and Powell, p. 30. 
For fiN cj. Heb. '!^ = '?; Syr. hdiden, and den (which through attrac- 
tion to Gr. Ss became postpositive), mn is now found in OAram., s. 
Lidz., Altaram. Urk., 11. For combination with a cf. Heb. nra, used of 
time, Est. 2". jns and ]n»s3 express a new moment or change of 
subj., Mar., Gr. §131. — 'Ji 3\->n] Cf. Heb. a'li'n 'answer.' The follow- 
ing aces, are cognate; cf. Pr. 26'^, oya ^a-'^'D. Tr., 'he made a well- 
counselled and prudent answer.' The varied use of ayo in BAram. (s. 
Lexx.) is due to Akk. usage. — ^i?Z] For the vowel e s. Kau., p. 105, 
Barth, Nb., §92, Brock., VG i, §140, Nold., AIG §94, Powell, p. 39. — 
imx] Also the name of the king of EUasar, Gen. 14'; explained by 
Del., Schr. as Sum. tri-akii, 'servant of Moon'; this derivation is char- 
acterized by Zimmern, KAT 367, as 'ausserst unsicher.' In any case 
the name was not used in Nebuchadnezzar's age (Sayce, DB s.v.) and it 
was evidently borrowed from ancient Uterature, even as Arioch appears 
as king of Elam in Judt. i^ — fcna-J 2t] So of a Bab. official, 2 Ki. 25^, 
etc. = '::n tj- of an Eg>'ptian, Gen. 37'*. The root means primarily 
'slay,' secondarily, in Arab., 'cook,' cf. ^'^'^ i Sa. g-^'. Since W. R. 
Smith, OTJC^ 262 = Religion of the Semites^, p. 396, comm. (Dr., Mar., 
Cha., BDB GB) have accepted his derivation of the term as going back 
to its sacrificial idea; the 'sacrificers,' as a distinguished class, became 
the king's bodyguard. But it appears absurd that a priestly caste 
should have become a civil poUce. 'Executioners' ('butchers') is simple 
and appropriate enough here; s. Pr., citing use of the root in Akk. = 
'execute,' and so Kon., Hii'h. This corps were the lictors (so here & 
ddhse), whose frequent enough business was the infliction of capital 
punishment. The Kapidshi Pasha was the chief executioner of the 
Porte (Bert.). The official then was the provost-marshal of the court. 
Such may have been the official named in Gen. 37'^, although there (§ 
and Josephus, as here ^ 0, tr. dtpxiixaysipoi;, 'chief cook.' AEz. sensibly 
remarks that this mng. was impossible in Pharaoh's court, since the 
Egj'ptians did not slaughter. Josephus here, AJ x, 10, 3, entitles the 
officer as the one over the king's bodyguards ((jwiia-roipjXocxsi;) ; EVV 
'chief of the guard' is very sensible. — ^^ '""^f^] With disjunctive ac- 
cent, vs. v.", etc. 

15. iinsS n-Ni njy] om., supplied from <S by OrC Lu. This may 
be one of 0's frequent abbreviations avoiding superfluous phrases; but 
& also omits it along with the following n^Sd n x'jiS'i', equally ignored 
by orig. (S. Prob. various forms of ^ were current. fJJ construes ^'2^^'^ 
as appositive to ivin, and so Sym. U EVV, all comm. But the vocative 


construction, as in ©, is far more in place, the other being otiose. — njj?] 
As in Heb. = 'respond to circumstances' as well as to word; cf. vP, i^. 
A capital parallel occurs in APO pap. 49, 1. 15; cj. Eng. 'answer' = 
'correspond,' of inanimate things. For use in N.T. s. Dalman, Worte 
Jesu^, p. 19. — Nm] yvwyiiQ, Q by error avoiita, 233"e ^ouXt). — '''?|^lL"?] 
= ^?m 3" (Gin. notes rdg. of HUleli Codex ^^xnnD). (g .^txpo)?, 
dtvxi5T)g, the latter = Syr. use of isn, 'be shameless.' But, despite Dr.'s 
argument for this mng., here {"urgent is not strong enough"), the word 
in the two passages requires the sense 'hasty, peremptory,' corroborated 
by the Arab, hasaba, 'festinare' (Freytag) and 'etwas ungestiim bean- 
spruchen' (Wahrmund); and so, more correctly, CS in 3^^ T^TCSiyev, 
uxspfffx^s'^- III Talm. the root means also 'be energetic' Criticism 
from Dan. that the sentence was shameless, or harsh (Bev., Dr.), or 
cruel (Jer.), would not have helped save his neck. Correctly AEz. 
nn\-ic, AV 'hasty,' RW 'urgent'; best JV 'peremptory.'— 16. 1 Sy] 
© (B Q 26 88 147) # om. The 'critical' texts ignore this important 
traditional variation of 0. (H^ om. 'Daniel.' — X3?D p] Lu. + [x- ^a- 
aiXia] 'Aptwx, apparently a gloss to give a reasonable subject to 'asked.' 
— ayz] Many mss n-;2, as is invariably the rule for v/7 vbs. in the pa- 
pyri; in this case the spelling with n has by far predominated over 
that with ."I. — pt] For the word s. at v.-'. — nMnn-'i] For the resolution 
into an infinitival, gerundive clause cf. vv.'^- -", 5'*, and for similar 
construction in Heb. v. sup. i^; here, 'and the interpretation would be 
shown.' See Torrey, Notes, I, p. 257, on the construction; he eft. the 
same construction in Syr., Nold., SG p. 216. 

17-23. The revelation to Daniel. Dan. summons his friends 
to supplications before God that they, as well as the other wise 
men, may not perish. To the simple datum of prayer, v.'^, for 
the divine mercy (^ adds the element of fasting (cf. a similar 
supplement in late texts of Mk. g^^). Omission of reference to 
fasting, which was included in all important acts of devotion (e.g., 
10', Est. 4) is due to the shortness of time, the few hours of a 
night, in which the Jewish saints kept up their vigils. Prejudice 
accordingly marks Hav.'s criticism of (B. The desired revelation 
is vouchsafed to Dan., v.^^, but its contents are dramatically re- 
served for the climax of the story. It comes by night, as again 
in c. 7, but in a 'vision,' not in a dream, the lower means of com- 
munication to the Pagan. The intimate scene of the spiritual 
life of these heroes is concluded, by both natural and liturgical 
propriety, with a hymn of praise in which Dan. 'blesses God.' 

20-23. The hymn of praise put in Dan.'s mouth is a fine ex- 

217-23 j^^ 

ample of liturgical construction; it is an original composition, 
entirely to the point of the story, and is hardly to be charac- 
terized, with Mar., as 'aus liturgischen Formeln bestehend.' 
The four vv. are severally tristich, tetrastich, tristich,' tetrastich 
(Mar., Cha.). The tristich, 2x2x2, is a resolution of the 
double 3-beat measure S"^ 3- O^ these metrical sections s. Int., 
§9. 20. The saint praises the Name of God, i.e., God in his 
self-revelation, for his omniscience and omnipotence, attributes 
revealed in human history, v.^^ His power is exhibited in his 
providence over 'times and seasons,' Moff., 'epochs and eras,' 
and in his sovereign determination of all political changes. In 
this expression lies a challenge to the fatalism of the Bab. astral 
religion, a feature which in its influence long survived in the 
Graeco-Roman world. (See C. Fichtner-Jeremias, 'Der Schick- 
salsglaube bei den Babyloniern,' MVAG 1922, pt. 2; Cumont, 
Les religions orientales dans le paganisme remain, c. 7, and for a 
lively impression of its conflict with the Bible religion, Barde- 
sanes' Laws of the Countries, properly a Dialogue on Fate.) The 
divine knowledge is proved by the occasional revelations God 
vouchsafes to 'sages and gnostics.' These glimpses of his pre- 
science in human affairs reveal the fact that with him ' the light 
is lodged,' v.", for him there is no darkness at all. There is a 
progress in the crescendo of 'deep things' (problems), 'hidden 
things' (mysteries), sheer 'darkness,' with their contradiction in 
the light which has its home with God. The motive of the light 
belongs to a poetic field common to Semitic religion; cf. Ps. 104^, 
Is. 10", and, quite parallel to our passage, Ps. 36^°, ' in thy light 
do we see light.' Comm. have compared here the somewhat 
converse idea in i Tim. 6^^ of God 'dwelling in the unapproach- 
able light.' The thought of 'the light' has hardly waxed to the 
extent of a ' Philosophem ' with Bert., yet with Hitz. we may 
compare Wis. 7^^, where Wisdom is 'the effulgence from ever- 
lasting light.' It is not surprising then to find 'the light' of this 
V. interpreted Messianically. In Midrash Echah, fol. 36, col. 2, 
Wilna ed., are given several 'names of the Messiah,' concluding 
with the dictum: "His name is the Light, as it is said (Dan. 2"), 
The light dwelleth with him." An interesting collection of simi- 
lar Messianic interpretations of 'light' is to be found in Pesikta 
R. at Is. 60*, ed. Friedmann, pp. 161 ^. The connections with 
the Johannine theme of the Light are obvious. For this theme 


s. in general Volz, Jiid. Esch., 328. 24. Change occurs to the 
2d pers. in the language of more personal prayer; it uses the 
intimate phrase, ' God of my fathers,' a term of ancient origin 
but especially common in Chron. Dan. praises God for the 
present particular revelation of his wisdom and might in which 
he has granted him to share. Yet he credits his associates with 
the power of prayer, " ut et arrogantiam fugiat, ne solus impe- 
trasse uideatur et agat gratias quod mysterium somnii solus 
audierit" (Jer.). 

18. n>'3dS] For the inf. s. at v.". — pcn-i] (S vrjaxefav x. Slriatv x. 
Ttiiwp(av; Behr. eft. (&^'s rendering of last term by mesdni berisd, by 
which he would understand ' castigatio,' so Mar. 'Kasteiung.' But it 
must be taken in one of its classical senses, 'vindication, help,' as Hav. 
has noted, citing Her., iii, 148, EupTjasxat xtjAwpfav. Then the first two 
terms appear to have been glossed in from 9'. — s^air nSx] -|- 7 times in 
Dan., 4 times in Ezr., 6 times in papyri of APO, = Heb. QiDtrn inSs, 
13 times in Ch., Ezr., Neh., Jon.; cf. Tob. 10'-, Judt. 5^', 6^^ ii^^ Only 
post-exilic except Gen. 24', where <S 'God of h. and G. of earth' = 24'. 
As an equivalent of ps'^ S>':3 (for whose antiquity s. the writer's re- 
marks, JBL 1909, pp. 67/.), the term was disowned in Israel's religion, 
but was revived after the Exile, when it became the title by which the 
Pers. government recognized the Jewish God. The correctness of this 
title in 'Cyrus's edict,' Ezr. i, has been brilliantly demonstrated by the 
papyri. The title did not arise under the influence of the Pers. religion, 
but the existent Aram, term became in the use of the Pers. chancellery 
a remarkable recognition of the essential content of the Jewish religion. 
It was generally used by the Jews only in external correspondence, and 
finally fell into disfavor again as too similar to Zeus Ouranios, etc.; 
hence CS here b xogioq h otlnc-coq. — 01 iNir a-;] Not exclusive, Dan. 
and his friends alone to be excepted from the penalty, but they as well 
as the other wise men; cf. v-*. — 19. Ni?n] See Kau., §56, 6, b, Mar., 
Gr. §83, c. — Nn] Pers. word, only in c. 2 and 6^; also in BSira 8'', 12", 
— ^'?.^.] Also ^'^;!, v.5»; cf. ^T, Ezr. 4"; s. Kau., §29, §47, g (g). For the 
Peil form s. at 3-°. 

20. ^Jv?!?.] So always except 4" ninS. The change of the doubtlessly 
orig. form r'^^n-' to sinS is an arbitra-y expedient to disguise not merely 
a spelling but a pronunciation which was that of the Unspeakable 
Name Yhwh. For arguments for this position s. Mein., Bev., p. 35 
(with citation of use in Talm., etc.), Dr., Tenses, §204, Obs. i (with 
extensive bibliography). Mar., Gr. §65, Str., Or. §16, m. Brock., VG i, 
p. 565. The arguments are: i) The use of pref. h, common in EAram. 
dialects, indifferently as impf. and juss. (Talmud, Mandaic, s. Nold., 

2^^'^^ 159 

MG §i66), appears only in this vb. in BAram., and invariably so, not 
only in juss. 2) The papyri have always nin^, never nin'^- this consti- 
tutes a demonstration of fact against the plausible philological theories 
of the defenders of n-[nh. 3) It is instanced only rarely in late WAram., 
viz., in jussives, s. Dal., Gr. §61, i. The defensive is accepted by Kau., 
Gr. p. 79, apparently by Powell, Supp. Hebr., p. 41, and is stoutly main- 
tained by Kon. in his article, 'Das 1-JaqtuI im Semitischen,' ZDMG 51 
(1897), pp. 330-337. The one plausible argument for support of the 
authenticity of the form is derived from a Zenjirii inscription. In the 
Hadad Inscr. (Lidz., NE p. 440, Cooke, NSI no. 61) occur apparently 
four or five impf . and juss. forms with /-preformative (cf. Cooke, p. 169). 
To these cases is now to be added another, in the Aram, ostrakon letter 
of Asshurbanapal's reign, published by Lidz., Altaram. Urk., 1. 8. The 
same pref. // is found in several cases in an Akk. text published by 
Clay, A Heb. Deluge Story, New Haven, 1922; the cases, summarized by 
Clay, pp. 19/., he regards as further proof of his theory of an underlying 
'Amorite' base to the text. But the Zenjirii testimony is wrongly ad- 
duced as Aramaic; the early Zenj. monuments are Hebrew, a point not 
sufficiently recognized, and so with the alleged 'Amoritism' of Clay's 
document. Even in the ostrakon Lidz. indicates a Canaanism in the 
same line; he speaks of "eine Koine, die stark durch das Kanaanaische 
beeinfiusst war." As belonging to the Heb. sphere the cases are rather 
comparable with the 'periphrastic future' of the inf. with S; s. Dr., 
Tenses, §204. Accordingly these cases are not WAram. particularly; 
the most that can be said for the illegitimate ninS is that its introduc- 
tion was favored by certain formations, even if we may have not to 
argue to EAram. editing. — ^'^ • >< ''"' ^^'i'] For the anticipative pronomi- 
nal sufl. s. Kau., §81, e, and cf. Nold., SG §205, C. For the construction 
in the papyri s. APO p. 266. In 'blessed is the Name of God,' 'the 
Name' has become the surrogate for the actual vocable of the divine 
name, irmsDn own (on which s. Arnold, JBL 1905, 107 ff.). For this 
usage s. the O.T. Theologies, e.g., Schultz, AlU. Theologie^, 401^., the dic- 
tionary articles, especially the bibliography in OB s.v. or, at end; also 
Hommel, Ayicient Heb. Tradition, 87/., 99^., and for late usage the 
writer's Aram. Incantation Texts, 56 ff. — '^v'???] = Heb. formation = 
JAram. and Mand., where sncDin exists along with Syr. Nnno^n; s. Nold., 
MG p. 105. — vsmiij] For H in closed syll. s. Kau., §9, 4, c, cf. Nold., 
SG §42. In Gr. tradition of Q alone correctly Suvapm;, all others by 
corruption auveatc; (the same error again in Lu. MSS at v.^^ and at 
Job 22- CS). ffiwng sapientia et iiirtus et intellectus, i.e., Suva;xt(; was read 
as the second term with Q, later intellectus = auveatg was glossed in 
to conform with later B text. Or^ Lu. revise by doublet gloss, -J) aoipfa 
■/.. ■?) cuveats x. "?) fay.u?. In a paper in Expositor, Sept., 1921, p. 214, 
'Anent Dr. Rendel Harris's "Testimonies,"' I have noted that i Cor. 


1^* Xptffxbv ©sou Suvccniv v.. ©sou aocpfav is based on the original Gr. of 
Dan. The same combination appears in Job 1 2". — '^^ "'"!] Oddly enough 
the current grammars (e.g., Kau., §21), Lexx. and comm. (exc. Mar.) 
ignore or misinterpret this phrase; e.g., after Zock., Mein., nis an em- 
phatic repetition of preceding n, and so GB, referring to the redundant 
use of de in Syr. Or n is taken as = quia with Jer., so EVV 'for.' But 
CBMich. recognized its true character, as exactly the later Aram. 
niSii, etc., possessive pron., suus; s. Dalm., Gr. §18, 4, and Nold., SG 
§69. The combination is found in the 7th cent. Nerab Inscr., I, 1. 14, 
in a Cilician inscription published by the writer in JAOS 1907, pp. 164 
ff.; in the Nabataean, and frequently in the papyri, s. APO p. 263, 
where the two words at times appear written as one (so here some Heb. 
Mss). Translate 'whose are wisdom and power.' 

21. nj^tid] Cf. foil. m;;nD. — N-'jcn X'-ji;-] Grr. xcttpous /.. XP'^^o"? 
(and so generally the same equivalents elsewhere) ; Jj^ng tempora (but 
Cassiodorus on Ps. loi gives orig. 31, Icmpora et saecula); ^zabne we'ed- 
ddne {i.e., reversing the terms; the same phrase in Clem. Rom., ed. La- 
garde, p. 19, 1. 22 = nnjJiD Gen. i"); U tempora et aetates ; EVV 'times 
and seasons,' which terms Dr., Cha. would reverse. For the same com- 
bination, with reverse order, cf. 7'-, Eccl. 3^ In Acts i' and i Th. 5' 
Xpovot X. xaipof is reminiscent of Dan. In the combination the words 
are synonymous; cf. our proverb 'Time and tide wait for no man'; also 
jni m Est. i". N.h. nj-i>'2 3^ = njdi na 3'. For xatp6q = xP'^vo(; s. 
Thayer, Lex. 319a. If pi be of Pers. origin (s. Scheftelowitz, Arisches 
im A.T., 81) from zrvan, which is most questionable {cf. BDB GB 
KAT 649, n. 5, arguing for Akk. origin), then it would have meant orig- 
inally 'time' in the abstract sense. — Dipnn . . . m^jnc] exchanges, 
on ground that appointment precedes dismissal; Or? restores correct 
order. Against °M'""2 cf. ^''P.^., (all examples given by Kau., p. 74, 
Powell, p. 40) ; but i is demanded in all forms, vs. Powell. Where the 
vowel-letter was not written e was used, and subsequently the spellings 
were confused. — njo lyii] = nyi ^11 i*. 

22. NnpiDjj] A word of Gnostic connotation; cf. Job 12--. The related 
Akk. ntmeku = 'wisdom'; Ea is bel nimeki, etc. (Del., Hwh., p. 89). 
Cf. the 'depths,' paSiQ, of God, i Cor. 2^*', i Clem. 40^; of Satan, Rev. 
2"*; and Bathos became a Gnostic figure. — NmnDc] Pa. pass, ppl.; ex- 
cellently dtxdxpucpa. — ^9] = n no v."', Ezr. 6^; for absence of dag. in 
following letter, true to Aram, use, s. note in Bar. — ^J^'^C!] = Syr. 
he'Siokd; on the form s. Nold., MG §101. — nt'hj Kt., ^y^^ ^t. and 
mss] The latter form common in J Aram (= Heb. •^'i^? Job 3'') is pre- 
ferred by Nold., LCB 1896, 703. Mein., Bev., Behr., Kamp. prefer Kt. 
which = Syr. and PalSyr. nahhird, generally adjectival, but also nominal 
as 'luminary,' also 'light,' e.g., Aphraates, Dem., vi, i. 2, ed. Parisot, col. 
249, 1. 21, col. 256, 1. I, etc. The form is corroborated by the abstract 

•ninj ju. 14^ and the change from Kt. to ^^r. is historically more likely. 
Contrariwise Torrey, Notes, II, 230, who thinks of an artificial com- 
bination with n>nj. — *<Tf] Pass, ppl., 'ungirt,' then 'lodged,' i.e., 'at 
home.' There is no reason with de Goeje, note to Strack's text, to pre- 
fer act. ppl. Cf. NHeb. "■nB', and the pass. ppl. similarly often in Syr., 
e.g., Aphraates, Dem., vi, 11, sub fin., "the sun's light is lodged in the 
earth." CS [icap auxw] xaxiluoiq, i.e., 'solution,' cf. 2 Mac. 8", 'disso- 
lution,' and inf. 5^^- i' the vb. = 'solve riddles.' 

23. '''?^3N] So edd. exc. Bar. "'O'^^^, on sUght authority.— '•T i°] Bet- 
ter personal, 'who,' with EW than conjunctive, 'because,' with Grr., 
B.— ^f:";, IMS Str. ?— ] So only nflpn 4'^ nSeiyn 522, otherwise "— . The 
papyri do not indicate the final vowel in 2d pers. sing, masc, nor in 
njN 'thou.' It is reasonable to hold that OAram. pronounced the vowel 
and that the occasional expression of it, e.g., v.*^ nniin, and nnjN, re- 
tains the earlier pronunciation, while our present form is late; so Kamp., 
rdg. ? — . — ]';d] S. Torrey, JBL 16 (1897), 166^., for the true interpre- 
tation of the form, and Lexx.; also in forms '"".^V.? and i^?.?, the two former 
in the papyri. Scheftelowitz, Arisches im AT, p. 88, in attempting a 
Pers. etymology (a caution in this line!) was still ignorant, 1901, of 
Torrey's derivation. — "'^QJ'ti'^] In Syr. -tdn{i) ; here Heb. influence? 
V. inf. Njnjj-iin. — Nrj?a] 05 iikibicx, i.e., as ppl., ^^^^^ '?.?. — nha] 
B A Q al. opajxa (=11 uisuni), ancient error for pTi[i.a, which 33 91 148 
228 have.— ^^^li'ii^ So Bar, Gin.; Mich., Kit. "^9— ; Str. "JO—] For 
the seglwl, sole for this form, s. Kau., §37, 2, a. Bev. notes that in the 
Bab. punctuation -ana (or -end), never -ana, is used, and eft. Merx, 
Chrestomathia targumica, 12. CS independently took the sufF. for the 
sing., [lot, which Torrey, Notes, II, 230, prefers. 

2A-45. Dan.'s introduction to the king and the relation of 
the dream and its interpretation. 24-30. The proffer of the di- 
vine revelation. 

24. Dan. seeks Arioch, asks him to hold up the order of exe- 
cution, and requests audience of the king. For the required 
Oriental etiquette, cf. Est. 4" (s. Paton ad loc); Hav. adduces 
Her., iii, 118. 140 for the Pers. custom, and Meissner illustrates 
it for Assyria, Bab. u. Ass., i, 70. The present statement is proof 
that Dan. did not have an earlier audience, vs. v.^^ 25. Arioch 
goes to the king, 'in haste,' as at 3^^ so EVV, perhaps more ex- 
actly with Behr., in excitement. There appears to be an incon- 
cinnity in the terms of Arioch's introduction with i^*^-, yet the 
formal introduction was obligatory, and royal minds are easily 
forgetful of 'college professors.' 26. The parenthetical addition 


of Dan.'s surname Belteshazzar, while possibly a gloss {cf. i Esd. 
4^^, but per contra the constant 'Simon surnamed Peter' in Jn.), 
is a proper literary bond with c. i (so vLeng.), giving the name 
under which the sage was presented. 27. Dan. gives all the 
glory to God in response to the king's inquiry as to his ability, 
after Joseph's example, Gen. 41*, and denies the power of human 
wisdom in the premises, as equally, v.^°, any virtue of his own. 
The humility of Joseph and Dan. is capitally depicted as sprung 
from reverence before God without fear of man, although cour- 
tesy to the latter is not ignored. Paul in i Cor. 2 develops the 
idea of the heavenly wisdom in a similar way, with indeed a 
reminiscence of v.^" iq-v.). 28. That there is a God in heaven, 
as against man-made gods and deified men, is the supreme 
theme of the book, even as it is the cardinal principle of the 
Bible, e.g., Ps. 11*. For the end of days, so correctly JV, vs. AV 
RVV the latter days, cf. Dr.'s excellent note: "An expression 
which occurs fourteen times in the O.T., and which always de- 
notes the closing period of the future so far as it falls within the 
range of view of the writer using it. The sense expressed by it 
is thus relative, not absolute, varying with the context. . . . 
Here, as the sequel shows, it is similarly the period of the estab- 
lishment of the Divine Kingdom, which is principally denoted 
by it." 

28. 29. There is an extraordinary duplication of thought and 
phrase as between these vv. In both appears ' the Revealer of 
mysteries,' and there are the parallelisms: 'what shall be at the 
end of days,' v.^* || 'what shall be after this,' v.^^, and 'the 
visions of thy head upon thy bed,' v.^* || 'thy thoughts upon 
thy bed,' v.". These phenomena are best to be explained — not 
on a sheer theory of interpolations, so Mar., but as actual 
ancient duplicates, which may go back to the earliest editions 
of the book. Probably with the secondary form, v.^^, should be 
combined v.^°, the statement of Dan.'s humility, which over- 
looked motive may have incited a fresh essay at the passage. 
Similarly Lohr regards v." as an addition. Jahn (cf. L'ohr) 
argues from a lacuna in (B^, v.", to a late interpolation of this 
passage; but he ignores the witness of ($^ to the originality of 
the passage. 30. For the contrast between any possible wisdom 
in Dan. and the sole ground of the revelation which lies in the 
purpose of God, Hav. eft. Gal. i"; the contrast is rightly ex- 

pressed by Hitz., 'nicht durch eine Weisheit, die in mir ware,' 
cf. EW, 'any wisdom.' 

24. n:T Sap So] Best 'accordingly.' The VSS have much trouble 
with this phrase and tr. most variously. — "'j) 2°] Idiomatic use of the 
prep.; cf. Arab, dahala 'alafuldti, 'he went to one in his house,' Wright, 
Gr. 2, p. 168.— 'js] Cf. i\— Stn] Ken. 118 <B B om.; iomss om. hy 
1° supra. Either simplification is possible, so Cha. The vb.Sy could 
have arisen by dittograph of the prep., so Mar. in his comm., Lohr, Tor- 
rey. Notes, II, p. 257. But the VSS defend Sy as against StK, and argu- 
ment cannot be based on superfluity in Aram, diction. — ■ ?*] Now found 
in OAram., in the Hadad Inscr., 11. 22, etc., the ZKR Inscr., the papp. 
— ^^i?A?] The variants ^J^y^) cited by Gin., and ''^Ti'.p, cited by Bar, are 
Hebraizing; s. Kau., §46. — nib'd] <& gxaaxa; did it read wmnN, 'riddle,' 
and understand it as the numeral ? So also v.^'. 

25. nSn^.-in] The rt. in Pr., Ch., Est., along with original sense of 
'dismay,' has also that of 'hurry,' and so here, 3^S 6^°, and NHeb. — S^jn] 
For nasal dissimilation in Aram, dialects, s. Kau., §11, 4, b; Nold., MG 
§68; Dalm., Gr. §71, 4. The phenomenon is still more pronounced in 
the papp., s. the nouns listed APO 262, and for the forms of this vb. 
.4P Index. — nn^tt^n] As against Kau.'s suggestion (p. 174) that the Hafel 
here is properly Peal s. Bev.; the Haf. also in the papp. For the vocali- 
zation, which is primitive, s. Kau., §40, 4; so the similar ferns., 
niDN. m't'jnn. nnD.-iirn.— it 2° Bar, Str.] Gin., Kit. om.— ^1^^] Also in the 
papp.; a back formation from the gentilic nin^, as Hitz. recognized; cf. 
Brock., VG i, 398, Wright, Arab. Gr. i, §251.-26. hdc >-i] (g adds 
XaXSataxf. — Snj] Rt. used along with hy, also in the papp. — 27. fD>3n] 
Asyndeton, s. i^"; for the classes of wise men, s. 2^. — jnu] Primary 
mng. of 1TJ = 'cut,' e.g., 2^, then 'decree,' Job 2"^^, Est. 2', and 
so ^"V-.] inf. 4"- '^\ a divine 'decree,' as in Rabbinic, and Syr. geztrtd 
= 'fate.' Hence the generally accepted mng., '(fate-)determiners,' i.e., 
astrologers, so JV, vs. AV RV 'soothsayers.' (S = HI simply translit- 
erate, Ya!;apTjvo( (unique to Dan.?). But there is another tradition of 
the word: Sym. had OuTi?, 'sacrificers,' H aruspices (Jer. citing in his 
comm. Sym.'s 0ut(4c;, which he says = -fjxaToaxdxouq, cf. the interesting 
scholium in Field at 4*) ; and this is supported by W. R. Smith, Journal 
of Philology, 13 (1885), 281, citing from Bar Bahlul's dictionary the 
equivalence of Syr. kdsomd with Arab, jazzdr, ' slaughterer.' We may 
then have in this word the Aram, term (also taken over into the Gr.) 
for the Bab. diviner of liver omens. — r^T] om. — through homoiot. 
in Sem. copy? Lu. cleverly restores without disturbing construction of 
by Buvaixt?; also found in Clem. Alex., Strom., i, 4 (ed. Potter, i, 330). 

28. nnnx] A borrowing from the Heb.?; otherwise BAram. has 


HID. C/. Akk. ina ahrat timi, s. Del., Hwb., 45. — A considerable passage 
omitted by (§'^ is preserved in (gs; it was known to both Jer. and Lu. 
It contains the plus, '0 king, Hve forever.' — i^'nt] For the psychology 
cf. Franz Delitzsch, System of Biblical Psychology, 300: "It is the only 
trace of the reference of spiritual-psychical events to the head." But 
the head is referred to as the seat of vision, so Mar., so also Ehr., who 
eft. Ecc. 2", 'the eyes of a wise man are in his head,' a comparison 
made long ago by Jer. Hav. well says: "Nach einer poetischer An- 
schauung des Traumes umschwebt derselbe gleichsam das Haupt," etc., 
and eft. II., ii. 20, of the dream god standing 'over the head' of Aga- 
memnon; so xxiii, 68, etc. — xin nj-i] Sing, by attraction to following 
sing, subject-matter; cf. Nah. 5'^, Est. 4''. Incongruence of pron. is 
exemplified in the papyri, e.g., APO pap. 15, 1. 2 xia'j nnDC njr. 

29. '^?^^' Kt., '??^' l^T.] So always in M; in OAram., inscriptions and 
papyri, always pjn, but doubtless = 'anta; s. on mn^ at v.^', and Kau., 
§18, Anm. For the absolute construction cf. v.'-, i^', 5*- **; similarly in 
the papyri, e.g., APA pap. B, 1. 8 njx in^j ('n as caret), 'my house,' and 
for Heb. usage, s. GK §135, 2. — T'JV>?-i]'t = Syr. re'ydn, 'thought.' 
The development of Syr. N>'n is from that of 'pleasure,' = Arab, radiya, 
to 'purpose,' and so to 'thought'; s. Brock., Lex., s.v. The Heb. phi- 
lologists dispute whether Heb. ^-1. Ps. 139 ^ ^"'j'"', Ecc. i'^ etc., r'>',1 
Ecc. i^^, etc., hail from root rdy, so Lagarde, Nold., BDB (sub III n;?"\); 
or from nyi 'shepherd,' so Barth, Kau., Aramaismen, 81, GB, Kon., 
Hwb. Legitimately rdy = Heb. nxi, which actually exists. But the 
Heb. words in question are late and are to be explained as direct bor- 
rowing from Aram. Our word is with M. to be closely construed with 
13Dw'D S;", 'thy thoughts (whilst lying) on thy bed,' so Klief. The elder 
comm. dispute over the exact mng. of '-\, without much necessity in the 
simple Sem. psychology; it includes the king's cogitations (Pr. 'specu- 
lations') as well as the vision. — lao-'D Sy] & laV h};, 'thy heart,' follow- 
ing a common Heb. phrase, e.g., 2 Ki. 12^ frequent in N.T., iva^ot^vetv 
(s. Lexx. s.v.) k%\ 1. xapSbv, and so in Syr. N.T.; also 2 Esd. 3^ (ad- 
duced by Cha. here), "conturbatus sum super cubili meo recumbens et 
cogitationes meae ascendebant super cor meum." Bert, argued for the 
originality of d's rdg. and is followed by Cha. (without reference to 
S>). The relative clause 'ji n ns is epexegetical to Tiv^ji. — ip*"?] For 
similar stative forms s. Kau., §25, e. JHMich. properly cites Lat. 
oboriri; with this idea in mind apparently B paraphrases, cogiiare 
coepisti. — n nc] An indefinite relative, = Heb. ni nn often, also 
Arab, and Aram. mddd. — nnx] This prep, in sing, form appears in 
OAram. monuments and papyri; it was later replaced by inx^, found 
also v.", etc. — 30. ''%] S. at v.'° — ^mon Vy] Also 4"; in the papyri 
laiSp, APO pap. II, 1. 3, etc.; also in Heb., nai Sy Ecc. 3'^ etc. — 
liynin^] For the impersonal use s. at v.^'; it appropriately here veils 

2^^ 165 

the mysterious agency. 05 ev yvwaet, error for Yva yvw(; (so Aq.). — l^^S] 
The triradical form in BAram. and the papyri, also in PalSyr. 

31-45. The dream and its interpretation. For discussion of 
the symbolism, s. Note at end of the chap. 31 . The v. reads very 
Umpingly as usually translated and interpreted. Both and ^ 
have simpler forms; nevertheless, (S contains all the elements of 
1|. The almost universal construction of the v., following M's 
punctuation, appears thus in JV: 'Thou, O king, sawest, and 
behold a great image. This image which was mighty, and whose 
brightness was surpassing, stood before thee; and the appear- 
ance thereof was terrible.' But the relatives in the second sen- 
tence are not in ^, and that sentence is manifestly circumstan- 
tial, parenthetical, as Hitz., Zock., Torrey alone, apparently, 
have noted; further, 'lo' ('behold') is generally construed with 
a ppl. {e.g., 7^ and cases cited inf.). Tr.: Thou, O king, sawest, 
and lo, A great image . . . standing before thee. For the interior 
clauses Torrey, Notes, I, pp. 257/., has best solved the awkward 
condition of 1^ by following <$, i.e., placing N"»Jtt' (JV as adj., 
'great') as adv. (as adj. it means 'much') after the subsequent 
^1 ( JV ' mighty ') . The resultant is : Thou, king, sawest and lo : 
an image — that image was very great, and its splendor extraordi- 
nary — standing before thee. For a similar lengthy period of. 


31. ^\•'^7\ nrn] N.b. the genuine Aram, use of the ppl. with vb. 'to be,' 
expressing continuance of action, also postpositive order of vb.; s. Kau., 
§76, f, cf. Nold., SG §277. For similar Heb. usage s. Dr., Tenses, §135, 
4; Aram, influence is obvious in late O.T. use. For 'thou sawest and 
behold,' cf. f, Gen. 41", Zech. I^ 2\ Rev. 14S etc.; also the frequent 
elSov in Rev.— 1^=:'.] 4'- ", 7« = ^"^^ 7-- '■ '■ '• '\ Cf. OAram. iSn CIS 
ii, no. 137, A, 1. I, B, 1. 4; on an ostrakon, APA M, b = Lidz., Eph., 2, 
229^.; also in Lidzbarski's ostrakon, Altaram. Urk., 1. 9. Opinions differ 
sharply as to origin and relations of the two particles. nN may be ex- 
plained as 'ein versttimmelter Imperativ vom Stamme hn-i," so Kau., 
§67, 6; the prothetic vowel is common in Syr., particularly in impvs., 
s. Nold., 5G §51; but the root early disappeared in Aram., being repre- 
sented in BAram. only by '•l. For iSk Pr. suggested relation with Akk. hi 
'verily'; Behr. eft. the Rabb. particles "'l^/ '"^.Q and =t>^: = o, so Dal., 
Gr., pp. 221, 234, citmg dialectic Aram, forms; Lidz. denies identity of 
the two particles (I.e.), treating iSn as ^■^.. 'is it not?' Their identity 
of use in Dan. is beyond question. — ai pT ndSx k^js* ■^r\ dSx] Of the Grr. 
Or^ alone = il^, si-z.wv |x(a [-|- [xsYiX-rj < ©] tioXXt), •?) efy.wv zY-elvq [itjiXi], 



on which Lu. depends for second clause; B = i^; [= H] e!xo)v \i(x 
[Ley&Xt] f) eJxwv; Q* 26 om. 15 st/,. sx. = Cypr., Tei/., ii, 17, ecce imago 
nimis magna; Sym., xotl t)v uq ivSTctiis dq, (xiya? 6 ivSptdeq, i.e. = 0. 
For (S's text s. Coram. & has abbreviated form, n21 in nd'^x and con- 
tinuing n^nt nrr 2t3T; it may once have read 3a 2-\, i.e., our xij^i" 21. — 
d'?x] OAram. in the Nerab Inscr. of a carved design, then of a 'statue,' 
so in Akk., of a god-image (Pr.); = Arab, ^anam 'idol,' as Jeph. tr. it; 
Sym., avopti? = "^ statua. — in] Practically indef. art., so 4'°, 6^- '', Ezr. 
4'; so occasionally nnx in Heb., e.g., 8'- '' (s. Lexx.); similarly ti? in 
Hellenistic Gr. — J5"!] 7-"- 2' = iste, rather than with Kau., ille, Lexx, 
'this.' For formation, dek -\- n, cf. Bev.; for -n as in nji, pnn, s. Nold., 
MG p. 86, n. 3. The form is unique in Aram., which developed a great 
variety of pronominal forms; cf. ddt, APO no. 71 (p. 218) nhSjt dotS 
'to that company.' This form may answer Ehr.'s argument against 
|3T because of its common gender, he analyzing our pron. into I? ''"1, 
i.e., *das so beschaffene Bild.' The demon, pron. in BAram. and the 
papp. can precede or follow the noun, Kau., §90, also in Syr., Nold., SG 
§226. — ^r.'] (S Tcpiaotj^ti;, i.e., rdg. ny-^ and tr. foil. r\y-\ similarly; 
follows (S in the first case, but in the second 5paai<;. For auiTj? Q 
has etxovo? auTT)g = Cypr., eiiis imaginis ; Maternus, ipsius im.; i.e., 
the omission in has been glossed in. B [statura] sublimis, i.e., as from 
rt. an. The word in same use 4^'; in pi. of the color of the face, 5', etc., 
7". The word, prob. = Akk. ztmu, 'Erscheinung, Gesichtsausdruck ' 
(Del., Hwb. S.V., KA T 649), means primarily the light effect of an object, 
its 'shine, sheen,' secondarily 'glory,' as in Syr. AEz. eft. the month 
name Ziv. Cf. Haupt on equivalence of Akk. Idnu ' aspect ' and Arab. 
laun 'color,' JAOS 37, 253. Nold. has claimed a Pers. origin, MGp. xxxi, 
GGA 1884, 1022.— -iTi>] AV RVV 'excellent,' i.e., 'excelling'; s. Dr., 
and his Add. Note, p. 32, on the use of this old English word in the 
Bible; better JV 'surpassing,' Behr. 'ausserordentlich,' 'extraordinary.' 
— '^n] I.e., ra'u>raiu (c/. tt'Ni) >riii; s. Bev., Brock., VG i, p. 293. 

32. 33. The details of the Image. The Image is blocked out 
in five parts, the last two of which have a common element, 
hence to be regarded as possessing a certain unity. Each part 
is composed of a separate substance; these substances are ar- 
ranged in order of value, gold down to clay, in parallelism with 
the hierarchy of the members of the body, from the head, the 
seat of dignity, to the humblest limbs, the legs and feet. The 
head is of fine gold; the chest (lit. 'breasts') of silver ;i the abdo- 

' Cf. Herodotus' account of the golden statue of Bel at Babylon; s. Note at end 
of chap, and Int. to c. 3. Compare the statues of gold and silver recorded by Pliny, 
Hist, nat., xxxiv, 18. 

232. 33 j57 

men and the hips of brass, more exactly bronze;^ the legs of iron 
and the feet 'partly of iron, partly of clay-fabric' The word for 
legs is generally used of the upper leg, the thighs (so (g crKekr))-^ 
if so used here then ' the feet ' would include the lower leg, even 
as the word is used in the description of Goliath's armor, i Sa, 
17®, or euphemistically of the whole leg, e.g., Is. y^*'. But it is 
preferable to take 'the feet' in the natural sense and the pre- 
ceding term as meaning the whole leg. understands by 'the 
legs' the lower legs, Kvrj/iaL. Only in the interpretation, vv.^^'-, 
is mention made of the toes, probably a later addition {v. ad loc). 
The one stumbling-block in the description of this fine work of 
artifice is the word translated 'clay.' The word (CjDn hasap), 
which appears with phonetic modifications in all Sem. stocks exc. 
Heb., invariably means a formed pottery object, whether a com- 
plete vessel or its fragments, i.e., potsherds. And so the ancient 
VSS universally render the word: Grr. ocrTpdiavov^ H variously, 
here fidilis (from H, also w.^"- «), testa (vv.^^- "i. 43. 45)^ And so 
S> with the same word, as also Sa. with its Arab, equivalent 
hazaf. Modern VSS and almost all comm. ignore this mng. and 
render by ' clay.' But the raw material is denoted in v.^^ by S^tD 
(EVV 'miry [clay],' RWmg 'earthenware'), while ClDn is iden- 
tical with 'potter's ware' (rather 'pottery ware') at v.^S where 
EW have 'potter's clay.' No more than in the case of the 
wrought iron can we think of raw clay daubed on the statue, 
and yet so Behr. defines 'clay,' ' abblatternder Thon oder 
Schiefer,' similarly dEnv. as of raw clay; nor of a conglomeration 
of potsherds. Menodius (in Pole) thinks of an iron ore with 
clay admixture. The comm. generally fight shy of an explana- 
tion, but correctly CBMich. : ferreos et testaceos, and so vLeng. 
We have to think of tile work entering into the composition of 
the figure, applied, as it actually was, in the way of decoration, 
but then in caricature regarded as shoddy work replacing the 
essential iron structure; the element was doubtless true to archi- 
tectural forms of the age. There is no question about the use of 
tile work in ancient Babylonian architecture ; we have the terra- 
cotta reliefs in Greek art, the tiling of Saracenic art, while the 
tile-covered towers of modern Persia are witness to this ancient 
mode of construction. We might even think of the porcelain 

- For the lavish use of bronze in Babylonia cf. Her., i, i8i, ' the bronze-gated tem- 
ple of Bel,' and in general s. Meissner, Bab. u. Ass., i, 265 _ff. 


towers of China. How far such work may have entered into the 
composition of statues we do not know. Chryselephantine 
images were known in late Assyrian as well as in Greek art, 
while the extremely ancient art of the inlaying of enamels in 
metal may have induced the similar use of applied tiles. The 
caricature of the picture lies in the application of this fragile 
form of art to the weakest section of the statue, enhancing its 
decoration but replacing the structural elements.^ 

32. xdSs Nin] The VSS variously render the pron. Ehr. rightly re- 
jects Behr.'s construction, 'dies ist das Bild,' for which rt:T would be 
used. Nor is Mar. right, 'es, das Bild.' For the indifferent position of 
the prons. s. at v.^^ — ::ni 1^] n not at all 'vertritt zugleich die Copula,' 
with Behr.; nor does it merely replace the construct. The particle re- 
tains its primitive mng. as a demonstrative relative; so frequently in 
Syr., s. Nold., SG §209, where he speaks of 'die grossere Selbstandigkeit 
des de, eigentUch einesDemonstrativ-(Relativ-)Pronomens ('dervon');' 
e.g., among hisexx. D•^^■^n n>2-\, 'those of Herod's party.' It corresponds 
to Arab, du, surviving in classical Arab, only in conventional use, s. 
Wright,Gr.,i,§8i. It has a parallel in Heb., e.g., nja- nn-i:';? n?,z.c.,* a mat- 
ter of 20 years,' s. my note JBL 1924, 227. In the papyri both this con- 
struction, TIN' T (n as caret) and the appositive use, ii'nj, are found in 
one line, APO pap. i, 1. 12. Inf. v. 38 Nam n ntrNi is rather in line with 
the usual Syr. constructions of two definites in const, relation. — aa] 
(g xpTJffToO = BV 88 148 OrP h" (hs 'pure') = Cypr. bonum; al. 
xaOapoO; 51 [auro] stiaui. For 'good gold' cf. Gen. 2^-, etc. — ••nnn] The 
plene writing with 1 is correct (rarely transgressed, e.g., 5*, Ezr. 6'- ", 
7")) as the papyri show, in which age it was then still pronounced -anhi. 
>nnn is dual, so Schulthess, ZATW 22, 163, and is to be added to 
Kau.'s list, §51, I, in addition to priNn and rJ"'J' (?") with Mar., Gr. 
§69, and imDJN 2*^, q.v.; also note %nij,'D inf. has early error: •'nnn 
read as ^7\^•^>, which was revised by an early doublet, al '/zlgs-q xal 
Tb axfjeot; = E. Or? adds the sufl. to the second term, -)- [ffTT)6o<;] 
auTfjs, and so hereafter consistently with i^, and Lu. follows Or? in this 
but not consistently. — inijjc] So °''3'.'? of the abdomen. Song 5"; prob. 
also a dual, and so pointed in NHeb., s. Jastr., s.v. — 33. jinjc Kt., pnjn 
Kr, and mss]. So also vv.^'- *''. OAram. was careless of grammatical 
agreement, s. Kau., §98, 2 and APO p. 273, §10. 3; hence Kt. may well 

' For the Mesopotamian art in tiles s. Koldewey, Das wieder erstehende Babylon, 
40 Jf. (with illustrations in color), Meissner, op. cit., 275 ff. For a terra-cotta relief 
at Sardes s. Shear, AJA 1023, 131 ff., and for Etruscan terra-cotta 'antefixes' D. M. 
Robinson, ib., 1 f. 1 note in Bedjan's Syriac text of Mar Jaballaha, p. 137, 1. 6, a 
'dome plated with green tiling,' NDXn, 

234. 35 j5g 

be original. In the papyri the suff. masc. is p , the suff. fem. is non- 
existent but would not be distinguished in spelling; s. further Haupt's 
note in Kamp. The terms mean that the feet were partly iron, partly 
clay (not distributive, as among the toes), and the point is to be borne 
in mind in the interpretation of v.*^. — HOn] See Comm., and consult 
Lexx. for philology; add Frankel, Lehnworter, 169. Nold., ZDMG 40, 
730, asserts that here the word is used of the raw clay; this is denied by 
Schwally, ih., 52, 140. 

34. 35. The second and final scene of the drama is the col- 
lapse of the Image, smitten on its feet by a Stone quarried with- 
out human agency; not a trace is left even of the substances 
which composed the proud creation, while the Stone expands 
into a Mountain which fills the whole earth. Only here is given 
the faintest indication of some background, an origin for the 
Stone; the detail is filled out subsequently in the explication, 
v.*^, that it was quarried out of the mountain, if the item be origi- 
nal there. The item has intruded itself here falsely in most early 
texts of VSS, but not in ^. For the Messianic exegesis of 
these w. s. Note at end of the chap. More poetical, as more 
natural, is the prophecy in Is. 11', 'The earth shall be full of the 
knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea ' ; the ' hyper- 
bole' (Zock.) of the rock filling the whole earth is due to that 

34. n ^;I] Cf. 7*. n;j here as in Heb. poetry, 'used to mark not an 
absolute clause, but an epoch or turning-point,' as Ps. iio^ (BDB 725a); 
cf. the similar use of Arab. hata{y). — '^?,^'^'^] I.e., hitgazdrat, retaining 
orig. accent, and then vocalized in Heb. fashion; so npin inf., munx v.", 
mnx 510, nnDntfn 5"; s. Kau., §30, 2, Powell, Supp. Hebr., p. 48. — 
]?.^] 'Rare in Syr.' (Behr.), but frequent in the papp. For the vocalization 
V. sup., I'^'C v.^". All Grr. have plus [XtOos] ss opous = B, or the same 
prefixed by Lu., exc. OrP V 233 Hipp^^ = ffiwng = g.. This plus in 
is an intrusion from ®, for has in v.*^ dxb opou?, and Lu.'s placing 
of the plus here follows order in v.■'^ Kamp rightly refuses to accept 
the addition, against Houbigant, Jahn, Ehr., Cha. This is a good in- 
stance of the fallacy of citing B offhand as 'Theod.,' as do those comm. 
and Lohr (who accepts the emendation here 'probabiliter'). The wit- 
ness of Jos., A J X, 10, 4, alleged by Cha., is precarious, as he compresses 
the story. — nS n] = 'that-of-not,' s. at v.''; the same in Syr., = JAram. 
nSs', i.e., 'without'; Heb. n':'^,'^ n'-.— nno] So Mich., Str., Kit., and 
properly, after Syr. vocalization; Bar, Gin. ^^^ (the same conditions in 


v.^^). For the variant traditions of such forms s. Kau., §47, p. 78. — 
np.lD] Cf. Mi. 4", Is. 41'* f-, Mt. 3'-; a frequent figure of the divine judg- 
ment. — iio"i] Only in Dan.; in Ezr. and papyri ion, papp. also on. For 
-n V. sup. pi v."; Earth, Die Pronotninalbildung in den sem. Sprachen, 
1913, 18, relates to Eth. 'emuntii,. ^ auTa, B Q h^* sJ? xiXoq, al. (if 
HP, be correct) auxoCi? elq zh xiXoq. This doublet rdg. appears in & 
'[ground] them well (22),' and had entered the Theod. texts before 
time of 21, where we have cotnminuit eos usque adfinem, Iran., or comtn. 
cos minutalim, Cypr., Maternus; cf. A ' very finely.' As © misunderstood 
pnn v.^^ as jian = xXfjeoi;, we must charge him with a similar lapse 
here, as supposing a form of Dcn, cf. Jos. 3'^ ''°''^, <& li^q zlc, ib xiXoi;, 
and Dt. 31-*- '" °?'? ""^j 05 eU x^Xo?. The ace. may have been sponta- 
neously restored. 

35. ^Pl] The vocalization demands a rt. pn || to rt. pp^ in npin, but 
with intrans.-pass. mng., 'broke down'; so Kau., §46, 3, a, and Kon., 
Hwb., giving both rts., which also appear in Rabb., where ppi only in 
derivative stems. BDB, GB, Mar., Gr. §66, c, prefer to find the one root 
PPi for both, but then abnormal vocalization here; we should expect 
PI, cf. PI Dt. 9"^ For assimilation of these parallel themes, cf. GK 
§67, r, §72, dd.— ^iq?] = Targ. Ps. 2"-. Heb. ">??? Ezr. 2", Ecc. ii«, 
etc. — NDDH ^Srifl] 5MSS Ken. nddhi 'id, at least an interpretative rdg.; 
(B = ^, @ reverses order, xb osr. h g(5; Or^c reverts to ^. Cha. 
adapts 0's order, but the oldest testimony is against this order, which 
is due to a rational rearrangement; s. at v.". Cf. Kamp.'s very sensible 
note: "Even in passages where the readings of the Versions yield a bet- 
ter sense (as e.g. in vv.'^- *^ in the order of the metals), it is hard to de- 
cide whether C& with their smoother reading present the original text, 
or whether we must rather attribute some slight roughnesses to the 
author." He cfl. 5* 'gold, silver,' with 5" 'silver, gold.' — ''1^!] Aram, 
would demand the vocalization hawau. — 1I/] (6 dxupou 'chaff,' 
r.oviopx6s ' dust ' ; Cypr. conflate, palea aut piduis (obvious gloss !) . Cf. 
Hos. 13'. — ''"^•1^.] For derivation (?) s. Lexx. Lidz., Altaram. Urk., 16, 
finds a month piN, 'Tennenmonat' in his ostrakon. I refer to my note 
on certain secondary intensive formations in the Semitic, in JAOS, 
1926, pp. 56-58, for a discussion of BAram. tin, ipy, ids and numerous 
nouns, esp. in the Aram., where doubling has been induced by a foil, 
liquid; this vs. the universal view of them as orig. intensive formations. 
— Nnn] With masc. vb.; this may be a case of incongruence of gender 
agreement, cf. Kau., 98, 2, a, and s. at v.''; cf. 3", 4' Kt. In Heb. 't is 
predominantly fem. (GB p. 748b), and so in Syr., where even the Holy 
Spirit was primarily fem. Here for Nnn pen (B h^*) xb xXfjGo? xoO 
xvsijtJ.axo<;, i.e., rdg. T^iH, s. at v.'^; §• is dependent on 0, 'and took them 
away a mighty wind.' Other mss the same -\- [e^T^psv] auxd: (Lu. 
auxouq). — "'"^1 Tr. 'no trace was found of them,' with Behr., who eft. 

236. 37 j.^j 

Arab, 'atar; cf. also use of nt^N as 'monument' in the Panammu Inscr., 
1. i8 (Lidz., NE p. 442, Cooke NSI no. 62), and so possibly in SArab., 
Hommel, Chrestomathie, 121. For the phrase cf. Ps. 103'*; it is cited in 
Rev. 20'' = 0. 0om. prec. So, Or^has. — '^T}.] Soedd., exc. Str., Kamp., 
Mar. = ^X^..; s. at v.'^ — ivjS] Grr. opo?, exc. Q V Lu. + mss ziq Spo?. 
— ^^j^.] So edd., exc. Bar '"^^iP. Kau.'s initial statement, §47, that 
vbs. N"S and n//S have been fully assimilated, is to be corrected by his 
subsequent note, (g), that in this vb. and hn^i-j.-id Ezr. 4^^ the strong 
formation is intended. The retention of k is corroborated by the papyri, 
where we find so treated (s. APO p. 270) xnn. n-::c. n-J'j, n-\p, nyz'; and 
there are traces of this survival in Syr., s. Duval, GS §214, Nold., SG 
§172. So here = orig. ^^ .,'^. (S Ixaxa^e, i.e., rdg. pn;:, as v.'^ Hermas, 
Sim. ix, 2, I, gives an original rendering of the passage: 8Xov Tbv x6atJiov 

36-45. The interpretation of the dream. 36. Dan.'s pi. we 
will say has been a moot problem. Ra. interprets, 'I and His 
Wisdom' {cf. Acts 15^*), supplementing with the remark that 
"this is the way of good manners," "1DID ']"n; JHMich. "sc. 
ego et per me Deus; uel ego cum sociis meis." Ace. to CBMich. 
the Jews ( ?) and Socinians, wishing to forestall Trinitarian exege- 
sis, applied the pi. to Dan. himself, ' auctoritatis ac honoris 
caussa,' cited by Mein., who prefers, with Behr., the reference 
to Dan.'s colleagues. The pi. approximates the deferential 'we' 
with Ra. in its impersonality, but is best compared with Paul's 
'we' {e.g., I Cor. i^), used with a certain humility; the present 
message was not Dan.'s own. 37. Thou, O king, king of kings : 
The rhetoric of the passage has been generally overlooked since 
H, Tu rex regiim es, = AV RW. But 'king of kings' is apposi- 
tive to 'king'; the balance of the v. and v.^^" are a parenthesis, 
the affirmation being made in v.^*'': Thoti art the head of gold. 
So rightly the Grr., ^; the rhetoric was ignored bycomm. until 
Hitz., followed by some successors and JV. For Dan.'s courtesy 
cf. Jer. : " Absque uitio ueritate sociata blanditur ut regi." ' King 
of kings' was, and still remains, the correct Pers. title for the 
monarch; applied to Neb. in Eze. 26^, and = Akk. Sar larrdni, 
but 'not the customary Bab. form of address' (Pr.). It appears 
in the Achaemenide inscriptions, and so in Ezr. 7^^ The title 
was also borne by princes of Armenia, the Bosporan kingdom 
and Palymra, s. Deissmann, New Light from the Ancient East, 
368. The Seleucides were known as 'lords of kings,' D''D^D jlX, 


e.g., inscr. from Umm el-'Awamid, CIS i, no. 7; the Aram, 
equivalent below in v.^^ 

36. Add to Swete's apparatus: (S^ -[_ [^, xpiatv] auxou. — 37. 
-\h . . . n] Not 'for ... to thee,' e.g., AV RVV, following incorrect 
syntax of prec. words, but 'to whom,' JV; so 0. — ^^P^] Also 4". Behr. 
alone objects to the universal treatment of 'n as synonymous with 
i<Dpr\. His interpretation, ignored subsequently, connects it with Arab. 
liazana, and derives the idea of 'riches.' For the dubious relations of ''^, 
s. GB, p. 248. But a suggestion is to be had from the use of the vb. in 
7**- -", 'take in possession,' and in particular from the papyri, where, in 
Peal and Hafel, it has a technical legal mng., possibly of fief-tenancy; 
s. Sachau's note in APO to pap. 5, 1. 6, where he suggests a likeness be- 
tween this 'possession' and the later /.X-rjpoux''':- So in JAram. nodhn = 
'possession,' and Sa., cited here by AEz., tr., nSnj pidSd 'an inherited 
kingdom.' Syr. confines itself to the mng. 'be strong.' In the present 
passage then the king holds his fief under God, and we gain a pregnant 
climax: royalty, possession, might, honor. — i<Dpr^] In Nab. 'Vollmacht,' 
Lidz., NE 387. treats the last three nouns as adjectives to PstatXefav, 
# NJDn as adj.; (S has five nouns, 1. apxfjv being doublet to paa. Zock. 
eft. the identical terms in the doxology of the Lord's Prayer, Mt. 6"; 
ef. the similar ascription to the Son of Man below, 7^^. 

38. The construction has given trouble since antiquity; e.g., 
the following varieties of interpretation: JDMich., '(et quae 
sunt) in omni loco in quo habitant,' etc.; AV RVV 'and where- 
soever the children of men dwell, the beasts, etc., he has given 
into thy hand,' so apparently the punctuation of M, accepted 
without comment by mod. Eng. comm.; Mein., 'alles, was da 
lebt' {h^^ as ' Gesammtbegriff/ not as spatial), but ]"'^^<"I has 
not the idea of abstract existence; JV, following the most com- 
mon interpretation, after (^, 'wheresoever the children of men, 
the beasts, etc., dwell, he hath given them into thy hand,' so 
Behr., who, after Bert, and with Mar., recognizes an anacoluthon 
here: "well dem Verfasser schon am Anfang des V. "ItD^^n 
vorschwebte." The difficulty of [b^]2 was early recognized by 
^ H and Heb. mss, and Bert, suggests its elision. Following the 
early testimony of (^ 0, we may omit initial 'and,' and read, 
wheresoever dwell the childreit of men, along with 0, as continua- 
tion of v. 37. The first item then is Neb.'s imperium over men, 
wherever they are to be found, the second his empire over all 
living things, the third is the summary, 'over them all has he 

2^* 173 

empowered thee.' As an alternative to this shght correction, 
with some authority and interpretations, there is Torrey's sug- 
gestion, Notes, I, 258, that pIST 'illustrates the use of the in- 
definite 3d pers. pL' with subject unexpressed, and so the 
phrase exactly = (g eV irdar) ttj oUov/xevrj. But the first con- 
struction gives a better climax. The beasts of the field ( = Heb. 
mtiTI HTI, e.g., Gen. 2^^, etc.), properly the wild animals, and 
the equally heefowl of heaven (cf. Gen. i^"- ^°), are reminiscence 
of Jer. 27^ = 28^^ where ' the wild beasts' are made to serve Neb. 
The idea is hyperbolic, not absurd; Neb. as the type and crown 
of Man has been invested by God with man's charter of do- 
minion over all living creatures, Gen. i-^, Ps. 8. An ancient addi- 
tion to (g, 'and the fishes of the sea,' glossed into most & mss (it 
does not appear in the citation of our v. in Judt. ii''), is equally 
not absurd in view of Gen. i, Ps. 8, against Mar. The dominion 
of man over the wild life was strikingly exhibited in the sports 
and menageries of the ancient monarchs, who even like Tiglath- 
pileser I evinced their prowess over the monsters of the deep 
(cf. Haupt, AJSL 23, 253 _^., OLZ 1907, 263). Cf. the satire in 
Bar. 3^^, 'Where are the rulers of the nations and those who 
lorded it over the beasts of the earth, those who played with 
the fowl of heaven?' Also the royal menageries {e.g., the lions' 
den, c. 6) were symbolical of the monarch's world-power. With 
pertinence dEnv, cites Ass. inscriptions detailing the tributes 
of wild and strange beasts and recalls the bas-reliefs depicting 
them.i In general, it is not necessary to explain away the ex- 
travagance of Dan.'s attribution of universal dominion to Neb. 
DEnv. makes a correct archaeological point that the Ass. kings 
claimed such imperium; he cites the title 'king of the four 
quarters,' and passages like that in the Taylor Prism, col. 12-13, 
'Asshur has elevated my soldiers over every habitation in the 
regions.' But it is equally unnecessary to be as serious as dEnv. 
in his claim that Neb. "could regard himself suzerain of the 
emperors of China" (ii, i, p. 167), or "of the lands in the north 
of Europe" (p. 169). It is sufficient to note that this universal 
sovereignty is attributed to Neb. in Jer. 27^, and is assumed in 
Cyrus' edict, Ezr. i-. 

' For the royal hunts and menageries of the Ass. kings s. Meissner, 'Assyrische 
Jagden' in D. alte Orient, 13, pt. 2 (191 1), and, more summarily, in his Bab. u. Ass., i, 
73 If-', for the similar amusements of the Pers. monarchs, s. Rawlinson, SGM 'The 
Fifth Monarchy,' c. 3, the classical rcff. in notes 439 #. 


38. Soai] ($ om., conj., construing with v.". — n Sdj] (6 para- 
phrases, 'in all the world (o!/.ouiJLeV|n) of (ano, i.e., ^i2 asp?) men 
and wild beasts, etc., he has given under thy hands to rule all'; ev 
icavxl Toiry; #B as n ""O (= Ken. i8o 651), & rdg. n nn« voy and TS a 
broken construction, et omnia in quibiis habitant filii hominum et (& also 
a conj.) besiiae agri iiolucres quoque coeli dedit in manu tua. iH appar. 
construes n;:'jj< . . S^ji as a sentence. For the phrase cf. Jos. i' (cf. 
v.^'), = Targ. inN S33, Pr. 17^; it may be a Hebraism. — jnNi] Kt., 
nil Kr.] So generally exc. N^cxp Kt. and Kr. 7^^; cf. Kau., §45, 3, i, 
§11, I, and Kamp. Nold. in his review of Kau. eft. the Arab, represen- 
tation of y with hanizah. In Sachau's papp. I find for parallels only 
pD^s and pp. — N^Da*] (5+ 'and the fishes of the sea,' which has in- 
truded into texts exc. B Q Or^ 229 h'^*. — yjStt'n] xaTlaxTjas ae; 
Aq. (Q&Smg) B have lost as by haplog. — Nin h.-ijn] For the copulative 
use of Nin s. Kau., §87, Nold., SG §311. — nc'N-i] 5MSS Ken. properly 
N^Ni. There is no reason with some comm. to read ^''^^'^. — N3m] 
CBMich. eft. the obscure namn used of Babylon Is. 14^ by Jewish tra- 
dition 'golden city' {cf. JV), and Jer. 51', where Babylon is a golden 
chalice in the Lord's hand; but the coincidences are accidental. 

39. After thee [lit. in thy place] shall stand another kingdom 
lower than thou. The traditional interpretation, e.g., VSS, EW, 
of the vb. is 'shall rise up'; but the same vb. in v.^*, used with 
the eternal Kingdom, is universally translated 'shall stand,' and 
this mng. is preferable throughout; there is nothing mobile in 
the scene. The expected designation ' of silver ' is added by Or<^ 
Lu. and in mss. of U exc. Cod. Amiatinus; the author instead 
has used the term 'lower than thou.' The expression 'lower 
than thou,' EVV 'inferior to thee,' signifies a lower degree of 
dignity, etc. ; but the epithet is not to be confined to the Second 
Kingdom, for each one of the Kingdoms is equally lower than its 
predecessor. Hence it is beside the point to argue why this com- 
parison is made here particularly : whether it is a moral inferior- 
ity (Zock.), or lack of unity (Keil), or of ecumenicity (Klief.), 
all which views are impossible historically on the hypothesis 
that the Second Kingdom is Persia. Bev.'s explanation that ','of 
the Median empire next to nothing was known in the time of 
the author" is the most plausible. But the degradation in- 
creases with each kingdom one 'below' the other. 

39. lina] So the later Aram, spelling of the prep., = -iPK-f- 3; in 7*- " 
i35 is uncertain between in3 and nnxa. The prep, is not found in the 

2^° 175 

papyri. For its meaning 'in place (track) of,' so actually here, not 
'after,' s. at v.''. — 'I™] With an ancient fern, ending ^ < aj/ ; for such 
forms cj. Nold., MG §124 and p. 154; SG §83; and for Arab, nouns in 
-ay Wright, Gr. i, p. 179, also 'uhra{y), our very form. In Heb. cf. niy 
= mtr 'Sarah.' (S om. HXXr) by hapl. with eXa-cTwv; as a marginal gloss 
it has slipped into v.". — njjiN Kt., >'"!*?; Kr.] Kt. is right historically; 
the form is an old ace. in -a, to be accented on the penult, used adver- 
bially. Cf. ii^V 6', and n'^3 v." (q.v.). These cases correct Kau.'s denial 
of such forms in BAram., §49. For Heb. s. GK §90, 2. The l^r. may 
be influenced by the later i!'\. Ra., AEz. take the word as adj., = 
^r^f, and so Bert., Behr., al. Buxt. appears to have been the first to 
recognize it as an adv., s. Lex. s.v., 'inferius infra te,' the explanation of 
the adverbial form being first given by Hav. — nti^'Sp Kt., nNn>Sn Kr.] 
See Kau., §11, i, b. The change of ■> to n induced change of n to n . — 
nnN 2°] Redundant, = 'yet another'; cf. 7^; om. 

40. The V. is difficult with its redundancy, which is surprising 
in this compact narrative. It may be translated: And a fourth 
kingdom [so correctly the Grr., EVV erroneously 'the fourth'] 
there shall be, strong as iron, according as iron crushes and smashes 
wholly ; and like iron which breaks, all these things will it crush 
and break (so with Torrey, disregarding m's punctuation, fol- 
lowed by EVV). But the VSS all offer shorter forms of text: 
(H, discounting the Hexaplaric plusses, omits 'like iron' 1°, 'and 
smashes,' and 'like iron which breaks.' ® also om. the last- 
named clause, rdg. simply oyrco? 'so' (= j^?). Despite the 
Hexaplaric amendments, which restore the triple 'iron,' the 
quantum of (g has not been brought up to ^. With agree 
^ H, although this agreement does not necessarily add weight. 
Or^ restores 'the iron' 3°, not the following 'which breaks.' 
The critical presumption against ' like the iron which breaks ' is 
accordingly strong, and while Torrey, Notes, I, 258, has done 
the best to save the whole v. by his repunctuation, he has not 
made its rhetoric much more sensible. It is best with Mar. 
(text — in comm. he suggests that the orig. ended with 'wholly'), 
Lohr, Jahn, Cha., to omit these words; read then for the final 
sentence: and all these things will it crush and break. Kamp. 
erroneously argues against Mar. that (^ read the words omitted. 
Cha. also would omit 'all these things' (j"»^X ^3) as 'not found 
in H g>'; but '^n = iravra^ while the eldest witness (g has 
irav hevhpov, which is simply a misreading of 1^ as ]^''« h'2. 


40. Wn] Used in later Aram, of the smith's hammer (correct Behr. 
here!), so JDMich., Supplemenlum. no. 876; JV 'beateth down,' AV 
RW 'subdueth' = U domat. — ^?-'] For explanation of the mil' el ac- 
cent as indicating primarily an adverbial form (so always where nSs 
occurs, 4' ^*- ^^ Ezr. 5^ and frequently in the papyri), s. the writer's 
article, 'Adverbial kulla in Biblical Aramaic and Hebrew,' JAOS 43, 
391.— W."JP] See Kau., §39 for the Mass. principle in the heightened a, 
cj. ^"^P v.^*. The variation of stem is a further proof of the secondary 
character of this clause. — '>'^^\ <tirro', s. Kau., §46, 3, a. — At end of 
v. (6 + X. aeiffOTjaeirat xaaa -f) ytj. Cha. accepts 'the whole earth,' rdg., 
'so shall it break in pieces and crush the whole earth,' and eft. 7^', 
Nyis h^ Saxni, also of the Fourth Kingdom; similarly Jahn. Blud. sug- 
gests, p. 63, that the plus represents original n>'i>< P"^^. But actually 
the clause is composed of two glosses on words ignored by orig. (g; 
aetaO-rjjsxat = yvnn, read as cvin, which rt. = ceUiv in O.T.; i) yii = 
y^^1, read as yivs; Tcaaa may be reminiscence of 7^. 

41-44, As in v^°, so here is an unnecessary repetition of 
phrases, and to a greater extent. The idea of the 'mixture' of 
the two elements is fully insisted on in v.", being reinforced in 
v^i^. It is taken up again in v.^ with specific reference to the 
'toes of the feet,' while the first sentence of v.^^ repeats v.*^*'. 
Jahn and Lohr have noticed this insipid repetitiousness. The 
former recognizes w.^^- ■*' as a doublet: they "scheinen mir von 
spaterer Ausdeutung des Bildes ausgegangen zu sein. Von Zehen 
war bei der urspriinglichen Schilderung des Bildes keine Rede; 
sie sind eingesetzt, um Eisen und Ton besser zu teilen zu konnen. 
Von v.^- sind die Zehen auch in v.*^ eingedrungen." Lohr regards 
HH pDlf i<1, v.*S and w.^^. 43^ ^g < probable additions ' (at which 
view Torrey, Notes, I, 259, n. 2, exclaims). As to 'and the toes,' 
v.", he and Jahn might have claimed the authority of orig. (g, 
which ignores it. With these critics the writer agrees as to v.''^; 
it is a thoroughgoing doublet to v."; n.b., xna^J |D|| nS'^pH, 
nH'^^fi II n"l''3ri. The item of the toes suggested itself as an 
extra satirical touch, and from this v. 'and the toes' in- 
truded into v.^^ Further, the first sentence in v.*^ is identical 
with the last sentence in v.^^, viz., ' (because) that thou sawest 
the iron mixed with the tile-work of clay.' It looks as if after 
the insertion of v.^ the construction of the period was taken 
up again by the repetition of v.^^''. Omit then ' and the toes ' in 
Y.*^^ and read on from v.^^'', According as thou sawest the iron 

241-44 j^y 

mixed with the tile-work of day, v/^^, they shall be mingling them- 
selves in human seed, etc. Further, Mar.,Lohr regard SJ^tO [f]Dn] 
EW 'miry [clay],' vv/'- *^ as secondary on basis of its 
omission by 0; but (| has it in both cases, rw Trr^Xivcp oarpaKO)^ 
and it is to be observed that with equal arbitrariness omitted 
nnS n [ClDPl] 'potter's,' v.^^ The KJ'^D has its rhetorical point; 
in last analysis that potter's work is but mud; for a similar 
ironic resolution cf. Is. y^- ®. In the secondary v.^^ a new mo- 
ment is added to v^^, in the distinction of two parts of the king- 
dom, one strong, the other 'brittle' (so with marg. of AV RW, 
rather than the usual 'broken'); these two parts would presum- 
ably be the Ptolemaic and Seleucide empires. This interpreta- 
tion is then reflected back by comm. {e.g., Dr.) to v.*^, and such 
a division read into it. But in v.^^ the word usually translated 
'divided' (ni'^^fi, s. Note) means rather 'diverse, composite,' 
and this is borne out by what follows: it [the whole] will have 
some [partake] of the strength [stockiness] of iron. Also in v.^^ the 
prima facie interpretation of the opening words is : and the toes 
of the feet — some of them iron, and some of them tiling, a very 
strained item, hardly agreeing with v.'', although this distinc- 
tion among the toes has been accepted by a number of comm., 
s. Note at end of chap. This fact is obscured in EW by ' the 
toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay.' The same 
trouble was then introduced into v.*^ by the interpolation of 
'and the toes,' and indeed Sa. definitely tr. there accordingly: 
'some of the members of it shall be clay, some of them iron.' 
Altogether ' the toes ' have complicated both figure and diction. 
43. The subject of the participial vbs. in v.'' is attributed by 
most comm. to ' these kings,' v.'**, by prolepsis, and the subject- 
matter found in the intermarriages of the Seleucides and Ptole- 
mies. For this question reference is made to Note at end of the 
chap., where, it is argued, after Jewish comm. and Keil, that the 
mingling of races is intended. The implied subject in such a 
participial construction is of course impersonal. 44. These kings : 
hardly a succession of monarchs or kingdoms but a contempo- 
raneous number of regimes. There is no practical difference be- 
tween a 'kingdom' and its 'king,' for the latter is the symbol 
and incarnation of the former; the practical identity of the two 
nouns is obvious in the text and VSS of c. ii. We may agree 

with Dalman, Worte Jesu, 75 _ff., that in the O.T. (Dalm. adds, 


in the Jewish Uterature in general) ri^^D is a 'sovereignty' 
(' Konigsregiment '), never ' kingdom ' (' Konigreich '). However, 
the Last Kingdom replaces the first Four in the dream, and is, 
in the idea of the scene, spatially bound as are its predecessors; 
the Mountain fills the whole earth, is not a spiritual Kingdom 
of Heaven. Since the early VSS, as well as in the tradition of 
l!|, uncertainty has existed whether there should be read 'the 
kingdom [to another people shall not be left],' so AV JV; or, 
'the sovereignty thereof,' so GV RW Dr. (AVmg, 'the king- 
dom thereof) after B, which is based on the actual Kethib, but 
against M- In the latter case the pron. might refer to 'a king- 
dom' as antecedent, producing the awkward combination, 'the 
kingdom's kingdom' (Keil), or better to 'God,' i.e., 'his king- 
dom'; but M is best with the abstract 'the kingdom,' i.e., 'sov- 

41. n i°] For similar construction in Syr. s. Nold., SG §366, C. — 
Nn;7axNi] Orig. 05 cm.; s. Comm. — jinja bis] For partitive use of 10 f/. 
BDB 580b, and for Syr. Nold., SG §249, C. Here not 'some of them,' 
etc., as I Ch. 9^^ but 'one part of them . . . another part,' correctly 
interpreted by pxp 1:3 v.*-. — "^i??] For treatment as 710m. opificum and 
vocalization s. Kau., §59, i, d. (6 for 'd n 5cepctiJ.c/.oO; om.; Or? evi- 
dently xspafxewi;. The word is universally taken as 'potter'; cf. Heb. 
nx>n ion, 'potter's clay,' for the fabric '"ti iSd. But the syntax of n 
with two indefinite nouns requires th^t 'o refer to the stuff, cf. 2r[-\ n 
v.'-, else why not Nins fiDn as in Heb.? Accordingly I am inclined to 
regard 'fl as potter's 'clay,' comparing fahhdr, equally 'potter' (ace. 
to Nold., MG p. 120, n. 2 of Aram, formation and origin), and potter's 
'vlay,' e.^., Koran, 55, 13; and so (^ under tood the word. — i|'s order 
'clay, iron' is supported by(S 0, reversed by Lu. = order in v.^; cf. at 
v.^''. — nji'^fl] Following Buxt., citing Rabb. use, Klief., Ehr. correctly 
remarks: "'fl heisst nicht geteilt oder zerstiickelt, sondern ... in 
seinen Teilen verschieden." — ninn] So only here, v.", 4^*, otherwise 
Ninn. — Nnasj] In usual Aram, use 'plant, shoot,' and so ptXT)<; = &, 
Aq., Sym. ipuTou = U plantario. But rather with comm. the word = 
'strength' (e.g., AEz. ns ), or better 'firmness,' Dr., JV. Cf. Eng. 'stick, 
stock' > 'stocky,' etc. The prec. ]d is partitive, 'some of the firmness,' 
Kran., Behr. — N'J''t3] Cf. Heb. ta^ta and s. GB suh !3''a for discussion of 
derivations; n.h. Haupt, JBL 26, 32: "Heb. U''t3 = Assyr. tltu stands 
for tintu with partial assimilation of the fem. n as in Syr. nob'^ archer 
for NniT'p." Bert re ards 'q ion as pleonasm, eft. i^n a^a Ps. 40'; Kon., 
Hwb. s.v. non, as a superlative expression; Torrey, Notes, I, 259, 

2^^ 179 

an 'an inferior, miry sort of day'; for a different interpretation s. 
Comm. — 42. nsp p] The same noun in Heb., i-, but here with differ- 
ent partitive mng., 'in part'; Schwally, cited in GB, draws attention 
to NHeb. nxpc, 'partly,' Jastr., p. 832.— n^iin] Correctly AV RVV 
'brittle,' c/. mng. of rir-'D v.".— 43. n 1° Kt., ■'■^i^^r.] Kt. = (also 
Iren.). ^^ 5(-at 2°, a gloss intended to precede oux eaovrat. — 3i;'C, 
|''2-i>'.i2] Hitz. notes the nice difference between the two stems: "Sie 
sind durch auss re Macht zusammengefugt, aber sie selbst verbinden 
sich nicht mit ein nder"; similarly in Syr., Nold., SG §278, A. — ;""\t3 
KZ'in] (S interprctatively, dq yiveaiv dvepwicwv. Cf. Jer. 31^*, 'I will 
sow .he house of Israel . . . with seed of man and seed of beast,' i.e., 
by natural generation; here, ace. to Klief., et al., in contrast with divine 
action. — "'"'.?~^'1, Bar '"'? ^^] = Palm, n T'n; recognized as one word 
by th,^ VSS, and a case of false Mass. division, cf. Sap S3, v.'; for origin 
s. Lex.x. & as prep., n'^?-id i^n. — 44. X''3':'S] = (S &; OrC paotXetcLv = 
B. — pjN] As adjectival only here. — Sann.-i] = 6", 7'*; primarily of 
inner corruption. — '^^i^Sc] Many mss n — , so (S aux-r) •?) ^aa. = S>; 
read as •^T — (= 3 mss nin — ), so Iren., B. Keil prefers ^^- — , and so 
Lattey argues, Biblica, 4, 91/. — p3n;:'n] <S i&oT) = p2Z'r. — H?"'] For the 
vocalization s. Kau., §45, p. 74; Powell, p. 40. The rt. in Aram, as in 
Heb. = 'come to an end.' But Xtxp-Tjaei = Iren. uentilabit, 'will 
winnow'; correctly Plav., "er dachte wohl an das Heb. derivatum nmo 
der Sturm." The same vb. appears in Jesus' reminiscence of this pas- 
sage, Mt. 21" = Lu. 20^': b xsawv erl xhv Xi'Oov toutov auv6Xota6T;ij£-:3i- 
£9' ov S' (2v TCtrn XixpiTjae; a'jT6v ('this stone' refers to Jesus' previous 
citation of Ps. 118"). The doubt concerning the mng. of Xtxyiav 
there (s. N.T. Lexx., e.g., Preuschen actually forging a new mng., 
'zermalmen,' followed by Deissmann, Bible Studies, 225) collapses; 
the passage is a verbal citation, and that of a 'Theodotionic' transla- 
tion; s. Int., §13. — r^a] Gin., Kit.; Bar jSn, also 6'; this pi. form only 
in Dan., not in the papyri. om. (5 om. prec. S3. 

45a. The seer concludes his climax of the Eternal Kingdom 
which is to destroy ' all these kingdoms ' by recurring to its sym- 
bol, the Stone: Just as thou sawest that a stone was hewn from the 
mountain without hands ; and he gathers up all the elements of 
the vision in his miniature of the final catastrophe, how it 
crushed the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver and the gold. Here 
the interpretation ends, v.'' being the asseveration of the truth 
of the whole vision. The relation of v." with v.^^ appears clearly 
in the Greek translations, but is ignored by the unfortunate 
Mass. verse-division, followed by the punctuation of the B edd., 
and by the EVV. The true relation was recognized by GV, fol- 


lowed by CBMich., et al., and all recent comm. exc. dEnv., 
Knab., Dr., Cha. In this v. we learn for the first time of the 
origin of the quarried Stone, it was hewn out of the mountain 
(generic, mountain mass), an item which is to be taken, with 
Behr., as 'eine Ausmalung des Bildes,' unless indeed it is to be 
rejected, with Kamp., as an early intrusion, for the Stone itself 
becomes a great mountain filling the whole earth. 

A5b is the signature to the revelation; Dan. has delivered 
God's interpretation, not his own; therefore the dream and its 
explication are true and reliable, in contrast to ' the lying word ' 
the king feared from the mouth of the adepts, v.^. For such con- 
firmations of visions cf. below 8^^, ii^, 12^, and the example was 
followed by later apocalyptic writings, e.g., Rev. 19^, 21^, 22*. 

45. mtjnx] But v.^^ 'jnn. In the reflexive formations with / in 
BAram. cases with hit predominate over those with 'z7; s. Powell, p. 15, 
for the statistics. There are almost no exx. in OAram. inscriptions 
{n.b. UNjnn in the Zenjirli Building Inscr.); in Sachau's papyri only- 
two cases, vxans, pinrN. Ace. to Kau., §23, i, Anm., 'it, with Arab., 
is original in Aram., and the cases with hit are to be regarded as Hebra- 
isms; also s. Brock., VG 1, p. 531. — l|'s order 'iron, brass, clay,' etc. = &, 
other VSS 'clay, iron, brass'; cf. the orders above, vv.'^"-. Was nddh 
supplementary and inserted carelessly? — 31 hSn] Exactly, * Great God,' 
so Grr., b dehq i^i^aq = EW, Kran., Keil, dEnv., Mein., Pr., Jahn; 
cf. Heb. ainSx, Aram. ]>^'''\p pn?x 4^, etc., 'holy Deity,' also Ps. 48', 
31 iSd = Miyxc, BxsCksdq of the Pers. kings; v. sup. at v.". The argu- 
ment of Behr., al., for the indefinite 'a great god,' is hardly seemly to 
Dan.'s unswerving religion. In Ezr. 5' the articulated n'3t nhSn. — I?'"!!?] 
Pass. ppl. of Haf.; an orig. formation with ha-, which survives in Syr. 
in this vb.; for other survivals in Aram, dialects s. Brock., VG i, p. 525; 
it is hardly a borrowing from Heb. (Bev.), as nhudti appears in the 
Atikar papyri. Bert. eft. Ecclus. 46'* Tziaxhq ipiasox; = BSira, hnii jsnj 
(of Samuel); 48^ xtaxb? ev 6p4asc = iJVina jDNjn (of Isaiah). Correctly, 
as with gerundive mng., Grr. xtax-Q. 

46-49. Neb. honors Dan. and his God, and prefers Dan. and 
the Three Friends. There can be no question but that Neb. in- 
tended divine honors to Dan. in the true spirit of Paganism. 
The first critic of our book. Porphyry, took exception to this 
datum, as Jer. cites here; the latter rejoins with reference to the 
worship done to Paul and Barnabas at Lycaonia. But, at v.^^, 
Jer. cites a parallel instance from Jos., AJ xi, 8, 5, how when 

24^-47 l8l 

Alexander approached Jerusalem and the high priest came out 
to meet him invested with the pontifical robes and the golden 
plate on which was engraved the name of God, the conqueror 
'worshipped the Name/ and then greeted the high priest. This 
bit of the Alexander saga may well have been known to our 
writer, although he is not so careful in distinguishing between 
the two phases of the monarch's reverence. Bert's view that 
only civic honors were offered to Dan. (eft. the honors tendered 
to Alexander on his entry into Babylon), is contradicted by 
the sacrificial terms in which they are expressed; cf. (g and &, 
but Aq. and Sym. avoided the technical mng. of minhah. 
Comm. generally dismiss this evasion of interpretation. Others 
suppose that Dan. must have, implicitly, deprecated the di- 
vine honors, so CBMich., Knab., after earher comm. Truer to 
the story is Klief.'s view of Dan.'s 'das heidnische Verfahren 
passiv gewahren lassen.' Best Bevan: "We need not stop to 
inquire whether a strict monotheist would suffer himself to be 
thus worshipped, for the whole description is ideal — Neb. at the 
feet of Dan. represents the Gentile power humbled before Israel 
{cf. Is. 49^^, 60")." Jer. is right in substance: "Non tam Da- 
nielem quam in Daniele adorat Deum"; which is inspired by 
Josephus' report of Alexander's reply to Parmenio, who twitted 
him for adoring the high priest of the Jews: "I did not adore 
him but the God who hath honored him with his priesthood." 
47. The king's confession of Dan.'s God as God of gods (s. Note) 
and Lord of kings, is the real climax of the story. Given the 
story, there is no reason for cavil at the Pagan king's confession, 
for a polytheist can always take on new gods, the monotheist 

46. •'niDJX Sj?] The noun, also in the papp., is a dual, cf. Nold., GGA 
1884, 1019, against Kau., §55, 4. (S + xa[j.a^ an exegetical plus. — 
ijd] Chap. 3 of worship of gods; in APO pap. 32, 1. 3, n-ijdd = the 
deified place of worship ( = Arab, masjid ' mosque ') ; but 'D is used of 
prostration before a man in the papyri, viz. of Ahikar before Esarhad- 
don, pap. 47, 1. 13, so that the contention (e.g., by Dr., who cfi. Targ. 
use) that the vb. does not imply a divine object is correct. — nnjn] The 
word is used in the papyri (APO papp. i. 3) of (bloodless) sacrifice at 
the Jewish temple at Elephantine. — pnn'-j] As here by itself Ezr. 6'°; 
in Heb. always nhu nn = AV 'sweet savour,' i.e., of incense. For 
these two terms (& Oucfa? x. aiuovSii;, [xavaa (so the most MSS, vs. B 


al. iiavvot, but in Gr. O.T. B generally prefers former) xal eutoSfac; (al. 
euwSiov); ace. to (gsmg Aq. Swpa (better as more literal 36^8 Swpov), 
euwSfaq; Sym., Bwpa xotl Oprjaxefa?. 'Gift' for 'D is an evasion. — 
njDjS] Prop, 'libate' (JDMich) = axsiaott, (B xot^aott (< axsljoti?); 
so <8 Job 42* the former = nS;? Hif. Both liquid and incense offerings 
were poured or dropped. 'J may be epexegetical to 'd, and the phrase 
have been current. For the frequency in Bab. rites of bloodless offer- 
ings, with terms corresponding to the present ones, s. KA T 595/., 599/. 
For Pers. custom of offering sacrifices to kings as representatives of 
Ormuzd s. Curtius, viii, 5. — 47. a-z'p p] Cf. a''X> jn v.^ — pnSx nSx 
paSn Nim] Correctly RV JV ' God of gods and Lord of lords,' vs. AV 'a 
God ... a Lord,' etc., which is preferred by Cha. Translation must 
depend upon the idiom of the language. In Sem. such a combination 
as 'god of gods' is notoriously superlative, = 'most divine'; cf. 'age of 
the ages,' 7^', i.e., all eternity, and for Heb. the identical expression as 
here, e.g., 10", also 'holy of holies,' etc. The construction can be used 
without determination, e.g., d-iSn Sn, 11=^, onay nay 'most slavish,' 
Gen. g^^; s. GK §133, i; anglice, 'God among gods.' N.h., ans' -\z' 8^ 
For ^sSd nid cf. Heb. D^nKn >jnN, Dt. 10". For the Pers. equivalent 
V. sup. at V.''. The clause is literally rendered by <8 ©; but OrC (A Q al.) 
+ [Osoi; Oswv X. xupto?] xwv xup{(i)v x. ^aatXsui; [twv ^a?.], = (& 4'* 
and a reminiscence of the Christ's title. Rev. 19'*. Cf. Enoch 9^ 'Lord 
of lords, God of gods. King of kings, and God of the ages,' and a similar 
phrase in i Tim. 6'^ — nic] Gin., Str. (ed. 5), Kit.; Bar, Kamp. (with- 
out notice of variant) mc; the former approved by all Aram, spelling; 
the latter induced by the parallel nSj (Behr.). 

48. 49. There is an historical problem here, as to which Por- 
phyry was the first to inquire, cynically, why the good Jew Dan. 
did not refuse the Pagan king's honors; Jer. pertinently replies 
by citing the instances of Joseph and Mordecai. It cannot be 
denied that in the matter of political preference a stranger 
might receive the highest honors from an Oriental despot. As 
to Dan.'s civic position we know of such provinces as Babel, 
Sippar, etc., governed by a prefect, Mkkanaku, s. Meissner, 
Bab. u. Ass., i, 121; in the Pers. period the term would have 
meant the whole of Mesopotamia, s. Meyer, GA 3, i, §29; for 
the Greek period the subdivisions were smaller, the Seleucide 
empire containing 72 provinces ace. to App., De reb. syr., 62, and 
s. at 6^^ The point of Dan.'s primacy over 'all the wise men of 

> S. Torrey's interesting discussion, Notes, I, 259, and now at length 'Medina and 
Polis,' Harv. Theol. Ren., Oct., IQ23, on the question when nria 'province' passed 
into the mng. 'city.' 0's translation here by x^?* stands correctly for the earlier 
use, as also (S, ' over the business of Babylonia.' 

24«-^9 183 

Babylon' has been stressed by those who deny the historical 
character of Dan., at least since vLeng. {q.v. on 2^). That comm. 
presents the argument from the closed character of the Magian 
caste as known from Classical sources (cf. more fully Rawlin- 
son, SGM The Third Monarchy, c. 3), while if the Bab. circum- 
stances are to be insisted upon, the equally sacerdotal and highly 
technical status of the Bab. religious castes constitutes an equally 
insurmountable historical objection. See, e.g., Jastrow, Civiliza- 
tion of Bab. ajid Ass., c. 5, esp. pp. 271^.; KAT sSgff. Further, 
Dan. cannot be conceived of as primate over their superstitious 
rites. The most extensive apology for this feature of the story 
appears in dEnv., pp. 182-191. In controversion of such an 
argument, 4^ bluntly entitles Dan. 'chief of the magicians,' 
S*'!2l2"in 21- But if the historical truth of the story must be 
dismissed, the problem that remains is how the Jewish story- 
teller could conceive of his hero functioning in so ambiguous 
a position. However, we possess sufficient parallels for this 
self -stultifying view in contemporary Jewish literature; e.g., 
the early Jewish midrashists Eupolemus and Artapanus, as well 
as the exuberant midrashic material presented by Jos., espe- 
cially in his C. A p., in which literature the fathers, Abraham, 
Moses, etc., not only appear as the first wise men but even as 
the founders of heathen cults.- The Biblical narrator is by no 
means guilty of the extravagances of those writers, but inno- 
cently accepts a common theme of hagiology without pursuing 
or even recognizing its ultimate absurdity. The theme has its 
actual Biblical precedent in the example of Joseph, who married 
a daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis, and who according 
to later story became 'an adept in all the wisdom of the Egv-p- 
tians,' Acts 7--. 

A minor problem is the question of the relation of Dan. and 
his three friends and their respective offices. This is relieved by 
recognition of the final sentence as a nominal clause, Dan. being 
in the King's Gate (s. Note), and of the mng. of the latter phrase 
as the royal chancellery. He was in the cabinet, while his friends 
were subordinate officers in their several bailiwicks. More seri- 
ous is the question whether v.^^ is redactional to prepare for c. 3 ; 
so Hitz., Barton (JBL 1898, 62 /.), Jahn, Lohr (dubiously), 
while the hypothesis is denied by Mar. If the v. be a subse- 

' See Schiirer, GJV 3, 468 Jf., and for convenient presentation of the less-known 
texts, Steams, Fragments Jrom Grmco-J ewish Writings, Chicago, 1908. 


quent redactional joint with a view to c. 3, it is clumsy enough, 
for it should have informed us why Dan. was absent from that 
scene. There is good reason, indeed, to hold that c. 3 is based 
on an independent story (s. Int., §21, c), but the composer of 
cc. 1-6 has cleverly led up to it by introducing the heroes of 
that scene as Dan.'s comrades and worthy in the development 
of the present story to share in his honors. 

48. l?!^"^] For the reduplicated stem, used only in the pi., s. Kau., 
§59, 4; the development into mng. 'magnates,' e.g., 4'', as in Syr. — 
nanc] Primarily a judicial district. II as pL, onincs provincias, so iMS 
de R.;^. (^ renders 's S3 by xpiytiaxa, from v.".— na?-^;!] For the 
appar. zeugmatic use cf. ]r:■<^ 1^. nnn hy may have been a nominal 
phrase, cf, Ninj nay 'Transpotamia,' xipctv xou 'lopSdvou = Ylepciioc; 
also the Gr. ol i%\ l^ouatwv, 3-^, etc., and n.b. the title of Mazdai, ap- 
pearing in coins of Tarsus (G. F. Hill, Catalogue of Greek Coins of Ly- 
caonia, etc., 170/.), snnj lay hy n nro. — pjja 2-\] 'Chief prefect'; for 
'D s. Lexx.; originally of civil ofEcers, but later of Jewish temple adju- 
tants, e.g., 7\WT:n po Jer. 52=* = Targ. N'jhd po, s. Buxtorf, Lex. s.v.; 
also of a novice in the Mandaan clergy. © Sym. have been misled by 
the usual use of the word and tr. by 'satraps,' 'generals,' and so &. — 49. 
ijm . . . N>'a] Hardly a peculiar idiom, with Mar., Gr. §130, c; for 
the purpose is expressed in terms of result, cf. Ps. 21 ^ — NnT>3j;] 'Ser- 
vice,' as in our 'public, civil service,' = 'administration,' = Heb. 
hdnSd. Hav. cfl. use of Arab, 'amila and its derivatives. Cf. xbv i%\ 
Twv xpaytitixwv 2 Mac. 3', etc.; so also a Pergamon inscr.. Holm, 
Griech. Gesch., iv, 167. — uj nayi] 01 © asyndeton. — xaSa^Jina] Cor- 
rectly the Grr., (& iv xfj PotatXr/.fi aCiX^, Iv xfj otuA^ -uoO '^aaCki^c,; and 
AEz. notes that it was a high position, for there sat the judges, etc., 
as he had observed in regard to Mordecai's position ace. to Est. 3^ 
iSnn -\yv2. Accordingly, it is strange indeed that this frequent term in 
Est. (6 times) is abused by the comm., Paton et al., as though, e.g., the 
royal gate was M.'s 'favorite haunt,' as 'a man of leisure,' or that he 
was a money-changer who had placed his table there (Haupt). Bert, 
and others think of the office of the palace prefect. But as early as one of 
Pole's authorities, and then by Schultens, Animad., 311, and others, it 
was recognized that 'gate' is a common Oriental term for royal offices, 
chancellery; cf. Arab, bdb, Turkish 'Sublime Porte.' Hav. eft. the 
identical terminology in Gr. for the Pers. usage, al 'kuXcxi (e.g., Her., 
iii, 120) and al Oupat (Xen., Cyrop., viii, i, 6); cf. also Appian, Syr., 145, 
ol xipl t9)v txu'kriy. The same use is now found in the papp., APO pap. 
52, 1. 13, of Ahikar, the king's prime minister, 'whom I established in 
the gate of the palace.' Cf. 'stand in the royal palace,' iS 



For argument for the identification of the Four Kingdoms here and in 
the Visions with Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece, s. Int., §19, c. That the 
Stories were an earlier production than the Visions does not militate against 
this common identification throughout the present bk. With the Diadochi, 
especially under the Syrian empire, the essential rottenness of the Fourth 
Kingdom was evident to spiritual eyesight even in the 3d century. 

Apart from a striking sentence in Dr., p. 17, commentators and writers 
on the history of Hebrew literature have in general hardly done justice to 
the grandly conceived and artistic symbolism of the Image. On the one 
hand, apologists have been too much concerned to appropriate it as a pro- 
phetic chart of the destinies of the world and to seek in every detail reve- 
lation and exact fulfilment. On the other hand, the 'higher critics' have 
been engrossed in countering their opponents, and too often, in their zeal 
to prove the errors or the inauthenticity of the book, have insisted on its 
literary characteristic as of has age and in so far inferior to the productions 
of the classical, i.e., Prophetic literature. If lineaments of 'lower age' are 
evident in this conception, yet its simplicity, its magnificence of proportion, 
its originality, deserve their right valuation. ^ 

The originality of the 'vision' is not diminished by its evident reminis- 
cences of the story of Joseph.^ The setting of the stage is indeed the same: 
the Pagan king's dream which defies the arts of his Pagan wise men; the 
interpretation vouchsafed by the one God through a sage saint; the result 
of the interpretation, the royal recognition of the true God and the honoring 
of his servants who have relieved the royal anxiety. But unless we are to 
fault every epic and every drama for imitative dependence upon classic 
predecessors, the writer agrees fully with Behr.'s assertion: "Von einer Nach- 
bildung der Josephgeschichte kann weder hier noch sonst die Rede sein, wenn 
auch der mit derselben wohlbekannte Verfasser begreiflicher Weise unwill- 
kiirlich an dieselbe erinnert." ^ There is also the identical humanity in both 
stories: here as there the revelation 'to save much Hfe'; here as there the 
humility and courtesy of the interpreter, as also the high-minded confession 
by the royal despot of the truth of the revelation, accompanied with his 

'This against Meyer's opinion, Ursprung, 2, 186, that in the Daniel stories 
"grosseren poetischen Werth hat nur die Geschichte von Belsazar." 

^ For literary reminiscences cj. v.' with Gen. 41*; vv.^- '- with Gen. v.', cf. v.^'; v.'" 
with Gen. 40', 41'°. 

' Discussion of this subject is in place when we note vLeng.'s sharply contrasted 
opinion, p. 35: "Die ganze Erziihlung von dem Traum und dessen Deutung [ist] 
sowohl in Ansehen der ganzen Anlagc als in einzelnen Ausdriicken, der Erzahlung 
der Genesis (41) vom Traume des Pharao und dessen Deutung durch den Joseph 


munificence toward his God-sent benefactors. But such human themes be- 
long to the humanity of the true Israel. 

For the apparatus of the Pagan king's dream there is a common Biblical 
background; not only in the Joseph story but equally elsewhere, in the 
dreams of heathen magnates, Abimelech and Laban (Gen. 20', 31-^, and of 
the Midianite soldier (Ju. 7"). It was a lower form of revelation, parallel to 
the divine administration in Balaam's 'enchantments in the wilderness.' 
This lower and always subsidiary character of the dream appears clearly in 
the Biblical treatment of the modus operandi of revelation; and criticism of 
the dream has its classic expression in Jer. 23 ^^ ^ •. That this story was influ- 
enced by that common, cosmopolitan genre of literature (c/. the dreams of 
royalty, s. Int. to this chap.) is not to its discredit. The story-telling art 
included cosmopolitan Jewry among its clients. 

In regard to the Image, or with JHMich., the Colossus, we discover, so 
far as our literary sources go, an entirely original piece of symbolism^. It 
differs from the symbols of the earlier literature, for these like the Lord's 
parables are taken from nature or human society. For an historically parallel 
allegory we may compare Ezekiel's symbolism of the great eagle and the 
cedar of Lebanon, standing for Neb. and Israel, c. 17; but this, as also the 
overdrawn parables of Oholah and Oholibah, c. 23, are drawn from natural 
life. We may rather adduce the bizarre symbols of Zechariah, influenced, 
as is commonly recognized, by the Babylonian culture and art. And equally 
here is a conception drawn from the monuments of the ancient world. ^ The 
fame of the Egyptian Colossi must have spread over the world. Herodotus 
knew of a golden statue of Bel existing in his day twelve cubits high, and 
the story must have left its impression on local tradition.* Even the di- 
verse composition of the Image had its parallels in ancient art (v. sup. 
atv.'^). The effulgence, zlw, of the Image was true to the colorful art of 
the age. 

The Image stands alone without scenery or background. Only subse- 
quently, with more reflection, are we told that it was cut 'out of a mountain' 
(s. at v.^0- I^ut naturalism is obvious in the collapse of the Image when 
smitten on its shoddy feet. The grim grandeur required no more scenery 
than did the torture of Prometheus with the solitary crag. 

The conception of the figure is composed of two elements, to which the 
poet-artist hews strictly. It is, first, the artificial figure of a human body; 

^ I have not been able to find, upon inquiry, any similar figure in the Classical 
literature. The nearest conception would be the Platonic comparison of the 
different grades of society with the head, chest, abdomen, etc. The closest ap- 
proach in literature is the monster created by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's 

^ Bert, notes that this suggestion was made by Herder in his ' Persepolitanische 
Briefe' (in Zur Philosophic u. Geschichle), no. 7, beginning. 

'Her., i, 183. For this background in fact and fiction, s. Int. to c. 3 bearing on 
Neb.'s Golden Image. 


and, secondly, it is composed of a series of metals of decreasing value. The 
metallic character of the Image deliberately stamps it as artificial and but 
heightens the truth of the symbol. For it is the man-made and hand-made 
construction of the kingdom of this world that the narrator would portray. 
The figure stands there stiff and stark, the product of human law and 
convention at their best and truest, but a lifeless creation. Over against 
this appears the mobile, supernaturally moving stone, coming how and 
whence none knows, which, as is true of the cosmic forces, crumples up that 
proud and complacent work of human art. The stone itself remains within 
the sphere of the inorganic, and so far is dramatically true. That is a drama 
of a different picture in c. 7 with the Beasts and the Man; but the stone is 
as pertinent here as the Man there.' 

Both these ideas, that of the human figure with its members and that of 
the series of metals, must be taken in their naturalness and simplicity. It is 
in offence to true interpretation that most commentators have carried the 
exegesis off into all kinds of mare's nests. Hence, for instance, we may not 
make too much of the hierarchy of the succeeding members; for naturally 
each of the members is successively 'lower,' the corresponding metal then 
indicating its actual quality. But commentators have pursued the details 
of the figure to the finest extreme, even lugging in the modern science of 
anatomy. For example, when we come to the legs, some of the commentators 
have found in them an added expression of the characteristic 'divided,' v." 
(q.v.), of that Kingdom. CBMich. and others have discovered here the 
division of the Roman empire into East and West, and what-not else; and 
Cocceius, to bring the figure down to date, finds the distinction between the 
ecclesiastical and the civil power of the Holy Roman Empire. Zock. puts it 
mildly when he says, "The dual number of the legs is evidently not regarded 
by the composer." For the human body has naturally two legs, and we 
take it that an image would stand more securely on two legs than on one. 
Similarly the toes — their number is not given — are counted up, or rather 
counted in; they have been identified with all kinds of tens in history. But 
the normal man has ten toes, even if we could work out five Ptolemies and 
five Seleucides to suit the very uncertain date of the composition of the 
chapter. The narrative appears to lay more stress on the toes, and this 
may be due to their representing contemporary history, but here, v.", follow- 
ing vv."- *^, we have to read, not 'some of them' bis, i.e., distinguishing the 
toes, but 'partly . . . partly.' However, reason has been given above for 
regarding the repetitious v.''- as a later insertion. 

Likewise, it is fallacious to pursue the symbolism of the metals: e.g., the 
gold as symbolic of the splendor of Babylon, or the iron as peculiarly ap- 

' Knab. falls short of the intrinsic articulation of the drama in his otherwise per- 
tinent comparison: "Compara slatuam hanc mctallis contlatam quae tandem quasi 
gluma et puluis tenuis euanescit cum filio hominis in nubibus coeli." 


propriate to Rome. For the mixture of the iron and clay we may sample 
the pathetic interpretation of Jer., the witness of Rome's collapse: "Pedes 
eius et digiti ex parte ferrei et ex parte fictiles sunt, quod hoc tempore mani- 
festissime comprobatur. Sicut enim in principio nihil Romano imperio for- 
tius et durius fuit, ita in fine rerum nihil imbecilUus, quando et in bellis 
ciuihbus et aduersum diuersas gentes aliarum gentium barbarum indige- 
mus auxilio" {i.e., the barbarian mercenaries are the clay).' 

A very different order of treatment of the series of metals is offered by 
modern students of ancient civilization, by comparison with the antique 
and wide-spread notion of the succession of four ages, gold, silver, bronze, 
iron.' In the Classical world this notion goes back in identical terms to 
Hesiod, Works and Days, io6 ff. {cf. Ovid, Metam., i, 89 ff.). In point of 
view of geographical proximity the correspondence of the series of metals in 
Dan. with the Parsee philosophy of history is still more striking. According 
to the Dinkart, there were four periods in the 1,000 years beginning with 
Zoroaster, of gold, silver, steel, and a substance mixed with earth. And in 
the Bahman-ya§t the prophet sees 'the roots of a tree on which were four 
branches, of gold, silver, steel, clay-mixed stuff.' 1° But scholars differ con- 
tradictorily in their estimation of the parallelism and of historical priority. 
Boklen, Jud.-christliche u. parsische Eschatologie, 1902, p. 85, Bousset, Rel. 
des Jiidenkints, 283, 578, n. 3, and most stringently Meyer in his recent work, 
Urspnmg u. Anfdnge des Christenthums, 2, ligff., press the Parsee influence." 
On the other hand, for denial or minimizing of the theory of Parsee influence 
in the Jewish motive, s. Soderblom, La vie future d'apres le Mazdeisme, 1901, 
248^.; Scheftelowitz, Die altpersische Religion u. das Judenlum, 1920, Con- 
clusion, p. 228. Their objections are primarily based on the chronological 
uncertainty of the origin of the Parsee notions.^ Another point of view is 
given by Gunkel, Schopfung u. Chaos, ^,7,;^, n. 2, pp. 323^., for treatment of 

'Hippolytus' interpretation of the toes (ii, 12) is interesting but vague: elzx 
8d:x,TuXot Tioowv, Yva SetxOwatv al xaxa xb [..?..] ST][jt,oxpaT(at (A jxiXXouaac 

' So far as I can see, Zock. first among the comm. notes the parallelism. 

1" Dinkart, ix, 7, in West, SBE 37, p. 180; Bahman-yast, i, op. cit., 5, p. 191. 

"Meyer allows that "die Zertriimmerung durch einen Stein ist natiirlich eine 
Erfindung des jiidischen Schriftstellers," p. 191, n. 2. On p. 189 he attempts to cor- 
roborate his position that the scheme of the Four is borrowed and displays its 
secondary character, by arguing of Dan. that " wirklich geschichtlich deuten vermag 
er die Vierzahl nicht, denn er kennt ebenso wie die wirkliche Geschichte nur drei 
Reiche, das chaldiiische, das parsische und das griechische"; adding in a note that 
"historisch ware eine Mitrechnung des Mederreichs absurd." 

'^ The dating of dogmatic Parseeism is not certainly fixed; s. Soderblom, who 
brings 'orthodox' Parseeism well down into the Achajmenide age, and prefers to 
find Greek rather than directly Persian influence in the Bible; also Lagrange's very 
sceptical study, 'La religion des Perses,' RB 1904, i _ff., who would bring Parsee 
orthodoxy down into the second century B.C. These disputes among competent 
scholars caution the laymen in the subject against hasty assumptions of Parsee 


Dan. 7, and his Genesis^, 241 jff., finding the four ages in the four Covenants 
with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses; and yet another by Zimmern, KAT 
633, regarding 'four' as the figure of the cardinal points; these scholars stress 
the Babylonian influence. If we have to carry back the 'four' to the Penta- 
teuchal theory of the Covenants — in which there is the conception of prog- 
ress, not of degeneration — we approach dangerously near the age when it is 
a question whether dogmatic Zoroastrianism existed. Since the theme of the 
' four ' is found in ancient Babylonia and the sequence of the aeonian metals in 
the eldest Greek Hterature, it looks as if we were confronting a cosmopoUtan 
idea, not with a direct borrowing." At all events, as far as Hterary influence 
is concerned, we find the symbolic four in Zech., in the Four Horses, c. i, and 
the Four Smiths, c. 2.'* At all events, we seem to be dealing with a com- 
monplace scheme, not with an importation. 

Keeping strictly to the figure of the Image, the present writer, as indicated 
above, sees no reason for distinguishing the lower limbs as specifically em- 
blematic. The legs, no more than the arms, are to be interpreted dually. 
And if the reference to the toes be not spurious, at all events they are not 
different in character from the feet. The figure of the iron artificially inter- 
worked with brittle tiles (s. at v.^') well fits the thought of the tapering off 
of the Iron Kingdom into a degenerate and non-consistent polity, whether 
we would think of the Graecian or the Roman empire. The characteristic 
of this last stage of the world empire lies in the word 'divided,' njiSs v.". 
Recent comm. still insist here on the division between the Seleucide and 
Ptolemaic kingdoms, e.g., Behr. (who argues that 'd must be defined from 
v.'*', where the division between Egypt and Syria is denoted). Dr., Cha., 
but not Mein., Bev. But, as has been noticed ad loc, '3 has also the sense 
of inner division, composition of heterogeneous substances. That is, each 
leg, each foot, every toe, are severally composed of non-coherent stuffs, all 
equally subject to fracture and crumbling. The reference to 'the days of 
those kings' is simply true to the facts of contemporary history (on the 
theory of the Greek empire, not of the Roman empire, which had a single 
head); 'king' or 'kingdom' would have been actually incorrect. 

The almost universally accepted interpretation of the ' mingling in human 
seed,' i.e., by natural intermarriage, v.*^, is the appUcation to the state mar- 
riages between the Seleucides and Ptolemies with their tragic consequences. 
The commentary on this history will be found in c. 11, s. at vv.^- ".^^ Such 
an historical reference would have bearing upon the date of the first part 

" The four-empire theory appears in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant., prooem. 2: 
Assyria, Media, Persia, Macedonia, followed by the Romans; and in Claudian, De 
laudibus SHlichonis, iii, 163 (vLeng., p. 87). 

" N.b. the Seven Men in Eze. 9 /., which have been identified by many since 
Kohut with the Amesha Spentas of Parseeism — whose original number, however, was 
six! And how did Parsee influence aSect Judaism early in the 6th century? 

" This combination is first made by Polychronius, who is summarized by Grotius; 
cf. Int., §21, d. 


of Dan. Keil, however, who holds to the identity of the Fourth Kingdom 
with Rome, but who cannot agree with any of the innumerable explanations 
of the royal marriages on assumption of that theory,'^ would think of the 
race agglomerations within that empire, denying, very properly, that the 
plural 'they shall mingle themselves,' v.^' (v. ad loc), refers necessarily by 
prolepsis to the subsequent 'kings,' and treating it impersonally. This con- 
tention of Keil's,'' which has good grammatical support, can be as readily 
accepted by the supporter of the identity of the Fourth Kingdom with 
Greece, for since the day of Alexander in Babylon, when he took Persian 
wives and encouraged his generals and soldiers to follow his example,'' there 
never was an age in human history, at least till the time of the population 
of the New World, in which the fusion of races and cultures took place on 
so magnificent and determined a scale, the spirit of which was abhorrent 
to Judaism, fo ; it was the revival of the Tower of Babel. 

In vv." ^^^ the interpretation of the Stone which destroyed the Image is 
given. There can be no question of the catastrophic and complete character 
of the ruin wrought by the Stone, and no evasion of the absolute statement 
of vv.'^- ^^, ' not a trace was left.' And this finality belongs to the essence 
of all apocalyptic prospect of the Last Days. The problem of interpretation 
has been sorely wrestled with by those exegetes who see the end not yet 
consummated. For example, 'in the days of those kings' is understood as 
an historical process, e.g. by CBMich., who finds therein the period of the 
Church's gradual growth. And Kran. stoutly holds the defensive, pp. 112/.: 
"Zu bemerken ist weiter, dass dem Verfasser die Enlstehung des messiani- 
schen Reiches und die vollige Vernichtung der ganzen feindlichen Weltmacht 
nicht coincidiren ; dass er beide Momente absolut gleichzeitig gedacht habe, 
geht weder aus C. 2 noch aus C. 7." But the labor he spends is futile against 
the drastic impression of the immediate collapse of the Colossus and the dis- 
appearance of its very elements. 

Like the preceding elements, the Stone too is a Kingdom, but one erected 
by the God of Heaven, to stand forever, in which there will be no change, 
no shifting to other dynast or people, but which will smash all those other 

" These range all the way down from the marriages of Caesar, Antony, the Con- 
stantines (s. Knab., p. 93) to comparison with the marriages of German emperors, 
etc. A similar view is that of Auberlen (Zock., p. 85), who discovers the mingling 
of the German and Slavic races with the Roman empire. It has not been observed 
that the interpretation accepted here goes back to the Jewish coram., who in- 
terpret the item as of racial admixtures: Ra., "they will be joined in affinity with 
other peoples"; AEz.: "the Persians will marry the Babylonians, the Sabaeans 
the Egyptians"; PsSa.: "Israel intermarried the peoples they dwelt among." 
Somewhat differently Jeph., who thinks of the difference between the great Relig- 

"C/. Knab., p. 92: "regnum illud complectitur uarias nationes et gentes quae 
inter se quidem commercia atque connubia ineunt." 

'8 Some 10,000 followed suit; s. Nicse, Griech. Gesch., i, its f. 


kingdoms and replace them for ever and ever.'^ The repunctuation for v/^*, 
attaching it to v.", gives rhetorical character to the period. The story-teller 
leaves his parable with its most striking point vivid to our eyes; similar is 
the terse ending of Ps. 1 10. 

The sphere of that Kingdom is that of its predecessors, only it possesses 
the everlasting endurance of the natural rock. The supernatural feature is 
that this Stone becomes a great Mountain. The artifice of men's hands has 
been replaced by the earthly type of eternity. It is enough to think of 'the 
mountains of God,' Ps. 36^, and 'the everlasting hills,' Hab. 3^; there is no 
need to postulate a mythical background like that of the Mountain of God, 
e.g., Is. 14^', or with Keil to see a reference to Mount Sion, cfl. Is. 2^, Ps. 50- 
(properly denied by Behr.). Only vaguely does the narrator intimate the 
emblematic content of the Stone; it is by indirection a People. This 
must be primarily Israel, 'the Saints' of 7^^. Josephus' comment is a good 
interpretation of Dan.'s vagueness before Neb.: "Dan. did also declare the 
meaning of the stone to the king, but I do not think proper to relate it," 
AJ X, 10, 4. 

The interpretation of the Stone, in the history of religious exegesis is, 
with the exception of one line of rationalistic identification with the Roman 
empire,^" universally Messianic, in the broad sense of the term. Exegesis 
divides specifically according as the fulfilment is found in the Messiah or 
the People, i.e., Israel or the Church. Ra. and AEz. tersely state that the 
final Kingdom is that of King Messiah, n'-tt'on ^Sd hidSd. This follows an- 
cient exegesis. Tanhuma, 31, 4, on v.'*, 'I saw until,' remarks: "Dan. saw 
King Messiah." On v.'^ Pirke Elieser, c. 2, notes: "The ninth king is King 
Messiah, who reigns from one end of the world to the other," and "in their 
time (of Edom, i.e., Rome) will rise a shoot, the Son of David" (s. Schottgen 
for these passages). Jeph. recognizes more varieties of mng. : "It is either 
the nation or the Messiah who is of them or of David's seed." For the Jew- 
ish interpretation of his day Jer. says: "ludaei et impius Porphyrius male 
ad populum referunt Israel, quem in fine saeculorum uolunt esse fortissimura 
et omnia regna conterere et regnare in aeternum." In Tanhuma, Ber. 70& 
and Bemid. 13 (cited by Dalman, Worle Jesu, 197, n. i) the Stone is inter- 
preted as the Messianic Kingdom. We may also note 2 Esd. 13, in which 
the Man from the Sea cuts a stone out of a mountain, flies upon it, and 
finally stands upon it; it is interpreted as Mount Sion. 

Similar duality of interpretation appears in the Church, but the strictly 
Messianic interpretation is earliest and most dominant. There is a direct 

" Behr., at v.", rightly denies Schiirer's view of the catastrophe that it symbolizes 
the overthrow of the Gentiles by Jewish arms. The composition comes from early 
Asida;an, not Maccabaian circles. 

"So Cosmas Indicopleustes, PG 88, 112, Houbigant (the mountain from which 
the Stone was cut is the Palatine, Bibl. Hebr., iv, p. 540, cited by Knab.) and 


citation of this theme of the Stone understood Messianically in a logion of 
Jesus, Mt. 2i" = Lu. 20'*, citing verbally a pre-Theodotionic version of v/* 
(s. Note above ad loc). This 'stone' is combined in the logion with 'the 
stone which the builders rejected,' Ps. 118, the first instance of the accu- 
mulation of Messianically interpreted 'stones.' Similar combination of such 
texts is found in Jewish comm. here, e.g., PsSa., who cjt. Gen. 49'*, 'the 
Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,' and Zech. 4^, 'Who art thou, O great mountain,' 
etc. Elsewhere in the N.T. the other 'stones' predominate in exegesis, e.g., 
'the spiritual Stone that followed them,' i Cor. lo^ which had similar treat- 
ment at the hand of the Rabbis (s. Schottgen, ad loc). For the Christian con- 
fession of Christ as the Stone of prophecy s. Rendel Harris, Teslimonies, 
particularly vol. i, p. 18, vol. 2, c. 12. Of the early Fathers, Irenseus, Hip- 
polytus (ii, 13), Tertullian, and for the Oriental Church Aphrem, followed 
this exegesis. 

For the application of the Stone to the Church the earliest instance (over- 
looked, except in a remark of Ewald's) is in Hermas, Sim., ix. Here, c. 2, 
we read how the Shepherd "showed me in middle of the plain a great white 
stone that had come up out of the plain. And the stone was loftier than the 
mountains, four-square, so that it could fill the whole earth [the Gr. differs 
from our Grr., s. at v.^']- That rock was ancient, having a gate cut out in 
it," etc. Later, c. 12, we learn that the gate is the Son of Man, who builds 
the Church upon the rock; i.e., the Church is rather identified with the 

For more specific ecclesiastical interpretations we may note the view, ap- 
parently not held by modern exegetes, that the Stone cut without hands 
represents the Virgin Birth, so Theodoret, Gregory of Nyssa, Aphrem; or 
that the history of the Stone represents the humiliation and exaltation of 
the Lord, so Hilary (PL 9, 681, cited by Knab.). The problem early arose 
as to the delay in the consummation of the Eternal Kingdom; Theodoret 
polemicized against those who held that the prophecy was fulfilled in the 
moral Kingdom of God already established by Christ; he himself held to the 
consummation at the future Parousia of the Lord. Then there was the ques- 
tion whether that Kingdom was heavenly or, at least in part, on earth, i.e., 
Chiliastic. The latter theory came notoriously into the actual political field 
with the Fifth Monarchy Men of the English Commonwealth, and has had 
its Millenarian adherents ever since.-' 

'' For these varieties of view s. CBMich. at v."; vLeng., pp. 98 jf.; Kran., pp. 
112 J^.; Zock., p. 88; Knab., pp. 97^. 




(i) 1-7. Neb. erects a golden idol and requires that all his 
subjects shall worship it in a great convocation at a given signal 
on penalty of a horrible death; his orders are pompously carried 
out. (2) 8-12. Information is laid against the three Jews, 
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, for their refusal to partici- 
pate in the heathen rite. (3) 13-18. Summoned before the 
king, the Three persist in the confession of their exclusive religion 
and in their readiness to meet death, whether or not their God 
will interfere. (4) 19-23. The king in his rage forthwith com- 
mands them to be cast into the fiery furnace prepared for those 
who disobey, and takes arrogant and absurd precautions that 
they shall not escape. They are cast into the furnace, when, (5) 
24-30, the king beholds a marvel, the Three alive in the fire, 
accompanied by a godlike personage. He summons them forth; 
their signal deliverance from all hurt is attested by his court. 
The king gives acknowledgment of their God and recognizes His 
religion, and promotes the Three in their civic offices. 

"The general purpose of this Chapter is perfectly clear — from 
beginning to end it is a polemic against the heathen worship 
and in particular against idolatry. The Israelite who has to 
choose between idolatry and death, should unhesitatingly prefer 
the latter" (Bev.). Over against the satirically exaggerated de- 
tails of the heathen ceremonial and the king's arrogant defiance 
to their God, the simple and unflinching faith of the Confessors 
stands in sharp-drawn contrast and at last evokes the homage 
of the witnesses. 

The archaeological background of a colossal golden image is 
found in the Classical authorities. Herodotus reports for the 
Babylon of his day (i, 183), 'a great golden statue (dyaXfxa) of 
Zeus' in a temple, and also in the same precincts a statue 
(dv6pLa<i) 12 cubits high, of gold, along with some interesting 
details of its fortunes under Darius and Xerxes. Bert., p. 260, 
calls attention to the statement of Diodorus Siculus, ii, 9, con- 
cerning the three golden images on the top of the Belus temple, 


dedicated to Zeus, Hera and Rhea, the first of which was 40 
feet high, weighing 1,000 Babylonian talents. The Rhodian 
Colossus of 70 cubits' height is sufficient to satisfy the seeker of 
realism in fiction; and if this was a unique object, we may recall 
the abundant works of massive proportion which adorned the 
Graeco-Roman world. For these costly and stupendous produc- 
tions Pliny, Hist, nat., xxxiv, g ff., may be consulted; n.b. his 
assertion, §18: " Audaciae innumera sunt exempla. Moles quippe 
excogitatas uidemus statuarum, quas colossos uocant, turribus 
pares." Also very close to our subject-matter is Nestle's inter- 
esting and original note, Marg., 35, on a golden image of Apollo 
similar to that of the Olympian Zeus, erected by Antiochus 
Epiphanes at Daphnae, as recorded by Ammianus Marcellinus, 
xxii, 13, I. Nestle holds that this was the golden image of Jupi- 
ter which, ace. to Justin, Hist., xxxix, 2 ('louis aureum simula- 
crum infiniti ponderis') the Seleucide Alexander II (128-123) 
undertook to loot. He concludes: "Ich denke, mit diesen Noti- 
zen, ist die Frage nach dem speziellen Anlass, der zur Erzahlung 
vom Kolossalbild Nebukadnezars gefiihrt hat, definitiv beant- 

But there is also a vague Jewish tradition, equally to the 
point, which has not been noticed. Alexander Polyhistor, citing 
the Jewish historian Eupolemus (s. Freudenthal, Alex. Polyh., 
1875, p. 16; Schiirer, GJV 3, 474 _^.), as excerpted by Eusebius, 
Praep. evan., ix, 39, records (after Gifford's tr.) : "Then Jonachim 
[i.e., Jehoiakim]; in his time prophesied Jeremiah the prophet. 
He was sent by God and found the Jews sacrificing to a golden 
image, the name of which was Bel. And he showed to them the 
calamity which was to come. Jonachim then attempted to burn 
him alive; but he said that with that fuel they should cook food 
for the Babylonians and as prisoners of war should dig the 
canals of the Tigris and Euphrates." The legend parallels Dan. 3 
not only in the item of the worship of a golden idol but also in 
that of the penalty for recalcitrancy; only, the despot is the 
Jewish Jehoiakim and the scene Jerusalem. Now as to the date 
of Eupolemus, Schiirer (p. 475) argues that he wrote in 158- 
157, or shortly thereafter, and probably is to be identified with 
the Eupolemus of i Mac. 8^^ 2 Mac. 4". It looks as if he were 
following some Jewish legend based on the same theme as that 
used by the Danielic narrator and applied to the Babylonian 


despot. Our narrator has then employed an old hagiological 
theme, which had its various developments in legend, and ac- 
cordingly it is very doubtful whether we may attach the idea of 
the Golden Image to any specific event. ^ 

There is also a Pagan tradition, not noted by the comm., 
which may He at the basis of our theme. Berossus (Miiller, 
Fragm. hist, graec, 2, 558, frag. 16, from Clem. Alex., Protr., in 
GCS c. 5, p. 49) is paraphrased as follows: "The Persians did 
not worship wood and stone with the Greeks, nor the ibis and 
ichneumon with the Egyptians. But after some ages they in- 
troduced human images, Artaxerxes (II) son of Darius intro- 
ducing the custom, for he erected first the statue of Aphro- 
dite-Anaitis and gave example for its worship to the Susians, 
Ecbatanians, Persians, Bactrians, Damascus, and Sardis." 
(See Meyer, GA 3, §78, for further reff., also A. V. W. Jack- 
son in ERE, 'Images,' p. 151, but ignoring Berossus' datum.) 
This startling innovation may have motived in popular tradi- 
tion a story of such an outrageous action as is here attributed 
to Neb. 

Ace. to Hipp., ii, 15, the idea of such an image was induced 
in Neb.'s mind by the vision of c. 2. As to the impersonation of 
the image, it has been extensively held, since Hipp., Jer., Chrys., 
that it represented the deified Neb.; so Dr., 'in all probability,' 
and dEnv., arguing from the Oriental assimilation of royalty 
with Deity. But vLeng. rightly points to v.^* {cf. w.^^- ^*) 
against this view, and Jeph. may be followed in regarding the 
image as a symbol of allegiance to the empire. Its construction 
of gold has also given rise to extensive argument, with charge of 
absurdity on one side, e.g., JDMich., with defence based on the 
fabulous riches of the East on the other. But Herodotus' state- 
ments about the golden idols in Babylon afford sufficient back- 
ground. {Cf. Pliny's account of an all-gold image of Anaitis, 
which was looted by Antony, Hist, nat., xxxiii, 24.) The gold 
consisted in overlaid plates, for which we possess not only abun- 
dant Classical evidence, e.g., the %/3i^crea ^oava^ but also that of 
the Bible, e.g., Is. 40'^, 41^, Jer. 10^ '^•, and the practically con- 
temporary statements of Ep. Jer., vv.''- ^- ^'^, and Bel, v.'; s. 

■ For comparison with the gigantic images of Assyria s. Knab., pp. 102 ff.; e.g., 
Ashumasirapal's statement of his erection of an image to Ninib of 'choice stone and 
pure gold,' Anttals, ii, 133 {KB 1, 95). 


Bert., p. 256, Hav., p. 92. Also the proportions of the 'image/ 
60 X 6 cubits, have produced extensive treatises, pro and con. 
There can be Httle doubt that we are deaUng with some sculp- 
tured object presenting human lineaments, and hence a mono- 
lith or pyramid, with some, is out of the question. The propor- 
tions of the human figure are as 5 or 6 to i, and so the present 
proportions appear grotesque. But the term of the original, 
salm, can be used of a stele only partly sculptured, e.g., the use 
of the word in the Nerab Inscription, where the stone is deco- 
rated at the top with the relief of the bust of a human body. 
At all events, it is not necessary to charge the narrator with 
an obvious absurdity. Of archjeological interest is the expres- 
sion of the mathematics in terms of the Bab. sexagesimal sys- 
tem, for which there is a parallel in the rod of 6 cubits in 
Eze. 40 ^ 

Jewish tradition doubtless lies behind the penalty of burning 
meted out to the recalcitrants. With Bert, we recall the false 
prophets Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylonia 
'roasted in the fire,' Jer. 29^^; so also Bev., p. 78, and Peters' 
note, JBL 15, 109. The later Haggadic development of the 
datum of Zedekiah and Ahab is given by Ball in his int. to the 
Song of the Three Holy Children in Wace's Apocrypha, 2, 305 _^.; 
n.b. also his citation, p. 326, of the passage in Tanhuma, 6, re- 
counting how Joshua the high priest was thrown into the fire 
along with those false prophets, but was saved unhurt. In the 
same line of legend lies the extensive midrash about Abraham 
as saved from a furnace of fire {Ur Kasdini = 'fire of the Chal- 
daeans'); s. reff. in Dr., p. 35, n. i, and tr. in L. Ginzberg, Leg- 
ends of the Jews, 1, 198^. As to the practice of the penalty of 
burning, it appears in the Code Hammurabi (e.g., §§25. no), 
and is recorded for the treatment of captives in I R 19 (cited by 
Miss Brooks, Moral Practices, 20). Is. 30^^ is based upon such 
a practice. It could hardly have been practised by the Persian 
fire-worshippers. The same penalty is ascribed to the cruelty 
of Antiochus Epiphanes in his martyrdom of the mother and 
her seven sons, 2 Mac. 7. 

In fine, Mar. is right (p. 18) in holding that the author did not 
invent the story but drew its materials from popular legends. 
It had assumed its form independently of the Danielle cycle 
and may well have been incorporated by the compiler or com- 

3'"' 197 

poser of the latter without much concern as to the whereabouts 
of Dan. during the episode. As to the historicity of such a 
tyrannous decree, it is impossible to find place for it in any 
knowledge we have of the Bab. religion, despite Wilson's argu- 
ments, c. 1 6, anent this chap, and c. 6. There may have been 
a basis for it under the more fanatical regime of Persia. 

1-7. Neb. erects a golden image in the province of Babylon; 
he summons all the officials, from highest to lowest rank, to 
attend its dedication, and orders that all the various classes of 
his subjects present shall prostrate themselves and worship be- 
fore it upon a signal given by the attendant orchestra. The 
pompous ceremony is forthwith celebrated. 

1-3. The valley of Dura in the province of Babylon has not 
been certainly identified. But the name (Akk. dUru, ' circuit = 
wall = walled place') is common in the geographical nomen- 
clature of Mesopotamia, as has been early recognized by Assyri- 
ologists, e.g., Schrader, COT 2, 127, and Delitzsch, Parodies, 
216, who notes that ace. to IV R 38, 9-1 16 there were three lo- 
calities Dura in Babylonia. Possibly Oppert has identified the 
name of our place in the river Dura with the near-by Tulul Dura 
{tells of D.) in the neighborhood; the river flows into the Euphra- 
tes some 6 miles S of Babylon, and the tells are 12 miles SE of 

The completion of the image had consummation in its dedi- 
cation, after the manner of ancient Bab. rites; s. Jastrow, Rel. 
Bab. u. Ass., 1, 375 f., passim, for specimens of liturgies con- 
nected with such rites. ^ To the festival are summoned all the 
grandees of the empire, and a list of these classes in order of 
precedence is given. A similar list appears in I R 45 ^., which 
records that upon the completion of his new residence at Sar- 
rukin (after Meissner, Bab. u. Ass., i, 71): "Sargon established 
himself in his palace with the princes of all lands, the regents of 
his country, the governors, presidents, magnates, honorables 

• Oppert, Expedition scientifique en Misopotamie, i, 238 ff., cited at length by 
dEnv., pp. 228/. Oppert, followed by Lenormant, dEnv., believed that a massive 
square of brick construction found in situ, 14 metres square by 6 high, is the ped- 
estal of Ncb.'s image. 

'In the matter of local color this dedication ceremony is correct; at the same 
time such a ceremony was doubtless universal in antiquity, e.g., the dedication of 
Solomon's temple. The dedication was kept up annually as a 'birthday' festival, 
as we know for the Jewish usage, and also for the Classical world; s. material on 
Roman rites collected by the writer in JBL 29, 33/., and cf. Euseb., Praep. evan., i, 10. 


and senators of Assyria, and instituted a feast." Behr. eft. Esar- 
haddon's Zenjirli Inscr., 1. 40, with six titles, ranging from ^arru 
to Mpiru. The unquaUfiedly Persian coloring of the story ap- 
pears in the five Persian terms of the list, the other two, the 
sagans (2) and pehahs (3) alone being Semitic. The satraps 
properly lead off, followed by the sagans or lieutenants (to use 
a term of the old English county administration), and the 
pehahs, or minor governors. We may compare the satrapy of 
Abar-nahara, with its subdivision Palestine, and as a segment 
of the latter Judah, with its pe^ah, e.g., Nehemiah, Neh. 5", or 
Bagoi, APO pap. i, 1. i.' Of the last two terms in the list, 
the first, that of the ddtabars, bungled by the Mass. pointing, 
has long been explained from the Pers. as 'judges'; the following 
and last term, tiftdye, remains unexplained philologically, but it 
has been discovered in the Strassburg papyrus associated with 
daiydnaiya, ' judges,' and doubtless is a minor judicial title. The 
two intermediate terms have not been identified with certainty. 
We have to depend upon the Iranologists, who are constantly 
baffled over OPers. terms. If this story was composed in the 
Greek age, it is interesting, but not strange, that the official 
titles of the past empires still prevailed. But they witness to 
Persia, not to Neb.'s empire. VLeng.'s criticism is too arbitrary 
when he urges that the writer 'heaped together' all sorts of 
official terms without concern; per contra, an intelligent grading 
appears in the titles so far as we can define them. 

3. (g avoided the repetition of the official list, summing them 
up in the phrase ' the aforesaid ' ; the lacuna was filled in by the 
Hexapla from 0. It is possible that original also avoided the 
repetition, and that the list was subsequently filled in. Such 
repetition, with which cf. the following fourfold listing of the 
orchestral instruments, objectionable to the Classical taste, is 
characteristic of Semitic rhetoric. 

1. <S pref. a date, I'xouc; 6xTa)xaiSe>t(4Tou; which has been glossed 
into all texts, betraying its origin (ignored by Lohr) by the gen. of 
time peculiar to (S, using sv with dat.; s. at i', 2'. Appeal to for 
originality of the datum cannot therefore be made, vs. Jahn, Blud. 
(p. 51). This datum for the end of Jerusalem is taken from Jer. 52", 
which disagrees with the '19th year' of 2 Ki. 25' {cf. Jer. 32'). It is 

'For the organization of the Pers. empire s. Rawlinson, SGM, 'The Fifth Mon- 
archy,' c. 7; Meyer, GA i, §§ 24/.; E. Bevan, House oj Sekucus, i, 325; cf. inf. at 6*. 

3^"^ 199 

repeated in <S 4I. The addition is dramatic in identifying the date of 
Neb.'s impious creation with that of his destruction of the holy city. 
(6 has also a long plus after Na^. 6 ^ota., based on Est. i', ascribing to 
him administration of all the world ' from India to Ethiopia.' (In <$ texts 
of Est. 'to Ethiopia' is lacking, but not in 2i.) The same expression of 
geographical extent appears in i Esd. 3'; also the 'satraps, generals, 
toparchs' of v.- inf. = i Esd. 3-. — VQ^] For the pi. formation s. Nold., 
SG §81, and GK §87. — '^.'??] Against Ehr., but our form appears in 
Syr., e.g., at Eph. 3''. — '""?'] Pause has retained the original vowel, i.e., 
sidt; s. Behr. vs. Kau., Gr. §68, i, Anm. i. — n;'pj] 'a is not found in 
Heb. and Aram, outside of Bibl. tradition; in Arab, buk'ah has the 
general sense of 'district.' — Nin] = § B Dura; (g by correct interpre- 
tation Toij xspt^iXou, vs. AsEipa, i.e., N->n (so Ken. loi). There is no 
reason to hold with Bert, that © thought of the Susian AsiQpct = Ptol., 
Geog., vi, 3. 0's transliteration is Aramaizing, and appears in the com- 
mon geographical compositive der. In Sank., gib, is given a more exact 
location of the place: '^ rj'pa ran •^•; hz'x -inor, but without contribution 
to our information. It is not necessary to exchange the geographically 
approved 'Dura' for the theory of Wetzstein (Delitzsch, Jesaia^, 701, 
cited by Mar.) that the word = zor 'depression,' the local designation 
of the valleys of Tigris and Euphrates. Gr.ven tr. xnn by xptjaewc;, 
i.e., as = 'pyre'; cf. CS's tr. of nn at Eze. 24^ 

2. «3Sd'313j] = (S with a plus; om. for brevity's sake. — nSir] The 
vb. is used frequently as absolute of sending messages, orders, etc.; the 
Gr. rendering d'TioaxiXXetv is similarly used in N.T. The comm. recall 
the Pers. posts. — -'J3S7] (g -|- [extauvayayslv] xcivTa -za sOvt) x. (fu'kx<; 
X. yXcoaaat;, prob. a gloss to OS's summary x. '6-/\oi<i v.*. — '^'l^ll^'D??,] 
'Satraps'; for origin s. Lexx. and cf. Meyer, GA 3, pt. i, pp. 51/. for its 
transliterations. In Akk. the word appears first in a list of Sargon's, 
satarpanu {cf. Offord, QS 1919, p. 138), and in texts of later date 
published by Pognon, J A ii™« Ser., 9, 394, and Clay, Business Docu- 
ments of Miirashu Sons of Nippur (no. 2, 1. 6, no. 21, 11. 7. 11, s. list of 
personal names under si-ha, p. 38) as ahsadar{a) pan ; in earlier Gr. = 
l^eTpd-iTTjt;; in 62 at 6'<^) is found aaipa-Kctq (Aquilanic). (8 exactly 
'satraps.' For the variant use of the word in Gr., both exactly and as 
of high officers in general, s. the elaborate article by Lehmann-Haupt, 
Pauly's RE, 2te Reihe, 3, 82-188; n.b. the extensive use in Gr. O.T., 
^■S-t Ju- 5'; only in Dan., (S and 0, does aax. represent the original. 
T. uTzifzouq = consules ; the contrast of the two terms is indicative of 
the different ages of the trr. — ^\yp] See at 2*'; properly 'prefects, lieu- 
tenants'; (S axpotxTjYO'jq, which is used by Polyb. for consul and 
praetor. — ^T^T-^] S. Lexx. and further Clay, Origin of Biblical Tradi- 
tions, 186, who claims for pihu Amorite origin; <S TO'jcd:pxa<;, a term 
of the Ptolemaic administration. — ^'^IJ^"]"!^,] As a Pers. word under- 


stood by Nold., Andreas (in Mar.'s glossary) as 'councillor,' s. Lexx.; 
Meyer, Entstehung des Jiidentums, 25, prefers mng. 'Obergeneral.' Sym. 
had, ace. to the Syr. gloss in (&^, x. Toii? (JtpxovTaq t. i%\ x. Yvuffswi;, 
Field recognizing that yvwati; = 'magic'; i.e., Sym. has interpreted 
the word from jnrj 2^'; this is the basis of RVmg 'chief soothsayers.' 
(B uxi4tou<;, -fjYou^ivout;. — '*^"^-47i'] EVV 'treasurers,' so Ps-Sa., but 
not elder Jewish tradition; accepted by some, e.g., CBMich., Meyer, 
op. cit. 23, as perversion of '^H?!-, cf. Ezr. 7-'; others, e.g., Gratz, Bev., 
as corruption of ^^r?!-, e.g., v.^^ 'councillors.' A plausible derivation 
is that offered by Tisdall in JQR i, 337, equating with a proposed 
gadhd-bar, 'mace-bearer,' comparing modern Pers. ckub-ddr and the 
axTjxTouxo? of the Pers. court, Xenophon, Cyrop., vii, 3, 16, etc. The 
word may be dittograph of the following xn^m, so Lagarde, Agath- 
angelus, 157 (cited by Dr.), who argues from the omission of one of the 
titles in C5 to the fact of a subsequent dittograph in ^. However, 
haplography, or simple abbreviation on the part of C5, followed by 0, 
in the indefinite xous ex' e^ouatwv may account for the variation of the 
Grr. ^ here StotxifjTac;, i.e., fiscal administrators, as in Polyb., so 
Rosenm.; Tupiwou?, for which s. on D'cmc i'; Sym. yotpSap-nvoui;, 
and for the following word GapSapTivous, a similarity in support of La- 
garde's theory. — '^il^rnj _ pers. ddtabar, 'law-bearer,' 'judge,' in Akk. 
databari, Clay, BE 9, p. 28. — '*.'!i;'?0] Found now in a sequence of judi- 
cial titles in Euting's Strasbourg Papyrus (s. APO p. 26, AP no. 27) B, 
1. 4, N>3rij N\-^D\-i N^n. Then «''J''t = our preceding xnam, and it may 
be suggested that our (perverted) Nnaij represents nidcu. Andreas' ex- 
planation of the word in Mar.'s Glossary is renounced by him in Eph. 2, 
15. Behr., p. ix, and Tisdall, JQR 217 f., suggest a possible ati-pati 
'overlord,' but the mng. is too grand for the office. An elder deriva- 
tion, e.g., lEmp., CBMich., connected it with the Arab, root giving 
fetwah, and tr. 'lawyers,' as in RVVmg.— ^r^"^-? ':''^'r'?' "^^l = 'all the 
provincial administrators.' For 1^;?= 1"^;^ v.", etc., i.e., <iu!(dn, cf. 
V^P. Ezr. 6- = P,?7 Ezr. 4'^; s. Kau., §6r, 3, a. For -on < -an in Aram. 
s. Nold., MG §118, SG §128, B; Barth, iV6., §194, c; Powell, Supp. 
Hebr., p. 35. & throws no light on the series of terms. "3 hopelessly 
unites nos. 6 and 7 in a phrase. Sym. has all the terms, nos. 5, 6, 7 in 
(corrupt) transliteration. There is no consistency in the subsequent 
rendering of these titles; s. Blud., pp. 98 ff., for a convenient table of 
the renderings. (S's list, 'satraps, generals, toparchs,' appears also 'in 
I Esd. 3^ and ib. v.^*, with addition of uxotxot as here. — khd] = ndkd; 
for syncope of k cf. ktdS v.'', iddS Ezr. 6'; for similar cases in the papyri, 
s. Sachau, APO p. 263. — najn] The root is not otherwise known in 
Aram, i 

3. V^T--:'^] Also v.", where some mss (so Mich., Str. var.) r'?'J?nDj 
Etpeel is to be expected; s. Note on V''^?.~~ 2". — (S avoided the repeti- 

3^"^ 20I 

tion of the list of ofl&cers of v.^, summarizing, as appears from the Hexa- 
plaric marks, in tdxe auvTjxQ'Oaav y,cx.\ SuxTjaav o\ %poyefpoL[X[).ivoi (with 
(Rs vs. 0I<^ TcpoffysY.)- The deficit in C6 was supplied by Or. from 0's 
tr., as appears from the use of the latter's terms. Or rather it is prob- 
able that also avoided the repetition in v.^, and that the present com- 
plement with varying order for the first three terms is due to Hexaplaric 
insertion. N.b. also evxaivtajAov v.' from 05 vs. 0's £vxo:(v[o: v.^ Like- 
wise <S and plus [xupavvot] [xeyiXoi, v.^, seems to represent the inser- 
tion of a new rendering of xnaij as Nn^j, seven terms being thus 
achieved. The orig. condition of may appear in the plus of A io6, 
X. auv-fj^Ofjaczv ol Toxdpx^t [/.. taxTjxetaav]. — The final 'jnj Dipn n is 
. given by (S, omitted by 0, supplied by OrC; 62 147 have a double gloss. 
The threefold occurrence of this phrase within two vv. is objected to 
by Torrey as 'intolerable,' Notes, I, 261, similarly Mar.; but with Kamp. 
it is better to follow the evidence of ^ and (5. 

4-7. Proclamation is made by the royal herald that at the 
fanfare of the orchestra all present, — as expressed in diplomatic 
language (Hav.), — all nations, tribes, tongues shall fall down and 
worship, while disobedience shall entail death by burning. Un- 
like the story of Esther, in which likewise universal edicts are 
given, the application of the universally expressed edict could 
have had but local effect; tout le monde was there. With great 
zest the narrator details the instruments of the orchestra, re- 
peating himself in vv.'^- '"• ^^ From his interest in this part of 
the scene we have an echo of the impression produced by a 
piece of concerted music upon the ancient mind, just such as 
the narrator may himself have witnessed at some state pageant. 
In matter of fact, ^ and the Grr. slip up in repeating the full 
list each time. The list begins with two wind instruments, horn 
and pipe, followed by three stringed instruments with the sixth 
and last again a wind instrument, over the character of which 
there has been great dispute. Of the six instruments two names 
are of Semitic origin, another is doubtful (= crafx^vKT})^ and 
three of Gr. derivation, the kithara, psaltery, symphony (as the 
latter word appears in the Douay VS, following U). The words 
are of interest as giving the only solid philological evidence for 
the reflection of Hellenic civilization in Dan.; s. Int., §8, c. It 
is to be noticed that this description is very cosmopolitan as 
compared with the accounts of the temple music in Chron.^ 

' For the music of the ancient Semitic peoples reference may be made, inter al., to 
the articles s.v. 'Music' in DB (by J. Miliar) and EB (by Prince), and to Well- 


The burning fiery furnace of v. 6, etc., must have been similar 
to our common lime-kiln, with a perpendicular shaft from the 
top and an opening at the bottom for extracting the fused lime; 
cj. illustration of such an Oriental tannur or tdb'il7i in Benzinger, 
Hebr. Archdologie^, 65, and Haupt's description, AJSL 23, 245. 
Hav. notes Chardin's remarks on the existence of similar ovens 
in Persia for the execution of criminals {Voyage en Perse, ed. 
Langles, 6, c. 18, end, p. 303). The sonorous phrase may have 
been, as Bert, suggests, the technical name for this gruesome 
instrument of execution. 

4. ^'I''"'?] = xTjpu^, Grr., etc.; generally understood as derivation, 
along with denom. vb. in Haf., f\2r\ 5=', from xT)puaa£tv. The root is 
common in late Aram, dialects; in Mand. nii^nd. Nold., GGA 1884, 
1019, doubts the alleged Gr. origin, similarly Mar. The nns on 
an Aram, seal, CIS ii, no. 86, is not to be compared. For the irregular 
equation x. = 3 (not p) GB eft. xpdaxsSov > Targ. Nicons; also n.h, 
N3aD, V.*, and "''?"'.?< KpT^xa. For a = t c/. nn = xapaos (= i^'^'^nn?). 
and n.h. Phoen. idd = Heb. lar (Lidz., NE 268). The word must have 
been an early borrowing. Its form, kdlol, common for tiomen agcntis in 
Syr. (Nold., SG §107), is unique in BAram. — Sin^] The phrase = 'call 
aloud,' also in 4", 5', cf. Rev. 18-. — xinn>'] For the strong form s. Kau., 
Gr., p. 92, n. I, §55, 5; in Syr. the same, ncd^', along with other cases, s. 
Nold., SG §§93. 102. The 'am is the political unit, so (& eOvtj, \<xoL 
The basis of the following ntn = 9uXa(, the mother-stocks, is found 
in Heb. and Arab. The 'tongues' were early distinguished for admin- 
istrative us? cf. the milldl of the Arab empire; besides the well-known 
use of Aram, m the Ass. chancelleries there was the official recognition 
of the languages in the Pers. empire, e.g., the Behistun Inscr. in three 
tongues, with its papyrus duplicate in a fourth, the Aram. {APO pap. 
61 ff.). (5 sOvT) (-H gloss X,. XM^at) Xao( v.. i-XtJaaxt; Xaci (B 105 141 
Xaoti;), ^uXal x. -{XCitzQan, to which Or.P-C Lu. pref. sOvt). The phrase 
is repeated in vv.'- '', 5'', 6-*, 7'* {cf. Is. 66'*, Judt. 3'), and occurs in 
various forms in Rev. 5', 7^, 13', 14°, 17'^, in several of which cases 
the doublet eevT) Xaoc is found. — 5. ^PP-] Primarily the curved 'ram's 
horn,' e.g., Jos. 6'^— ><7'i'?i"'F?] So in Syr.; cf. Heb. root, 'hiss, whistle,' 
and derivatives; Grr. aupty^, with onomatopoetic equivalence; AV 
RVV 'flute,' JV 'pipe.'— Dnn^i Kt., °^^P- Kr.] Kr. = Targ. to Is. 5'"- = 
Heb. in ! (so here in Heb. tr. in Ken. 240) ; the vocalization is best 

hausen's treatment in the Polychrome Psalms, Eng. tr.; for Babylonia, Meissner, 
Bab. u. Ass., 331 ff.; for the Rabb. traditions Biichler, 'Tempelmusik,' arts, in 
ZATW, vols. 19. 20; S. Krauss, Tahn. Arch., §§247 J.; Oesterley, The Psalms in 
the Jewish Church, cc. 2. 3. 

3^-7 203 

preserved in Syr. kitdrd, = Gr. xieotpi.;, xiedpa; EVV 'harp.'— ^???'] 
Also 'D (s. Gins. vs. Bar); = oa;j.^ux.T), a triangular instrument of four 
strings with high notes; AV RV 'sackbut,' a sound-equivalent of the 
original, but erroneously; s. Dr. for refl. and add Hastings in DB s.v. 
'Sackbut'; the sackbut was a wind instrument. Dr., JV 'triagon.' As 
to the word Strabo, Geog., x, 3, 17, notes that it is of 'barbarous' origin 
along with va^Xa?, etc. — t'lO^??] V.^ jnajao (= Arab, sanfir); = 
(J^aXxTjptov, EVV 'psaltery'; s. Dr. on this 'stringed instrument of tri- 
angular shape' with the 'sounding board above the strings.' — ^^Aa'pi^] 
After Nehardean tradition n — ; v." nijs^D Kt., n^jsiD Kr.; cf. Syr. 
^epponia (so Sin. Syr. at Lu. iS^O; au;i.9a)v{ot. In the Pal. Tariff Inscr., 
Lidz., NE pp. 463 ff., Cooke, NSl no. 147, psD thrice = GutJL?covo<;. 
"The word, which in Plato and Aristotle has the sense of harmony or 
concord, came in later Greek to denote a bagpipe" so Dr., followed by 
JV. The first reff. to the symphony as an instrument actually occur in 
anecdotes of Antiochus Epiphanes' life, Polyb. xxvi, 10, and xxxi, 4, 
cited at length by Dr., according to which in his mad freaks Ant. would 
play on or dance to the symphony. But the mng. 'bagpipe' has been 
strenuously disputed. In JBL 1904, 180-190, P. Barry, under the 
title 'On Luke xv. 25, uufiipcovfa, Bagpipe,' argued for this mng. G. F. 
Moore replied, JBL 1905, 166-175, denying the existence of ancient 
authority for this tradition. Barry countered in JBL 1908, 99-127. 
Some have suggested that the Gr. at'ywv is the original, so a Jewish 
interpretation, s. Moore, pp. 167 ff. — Of these musical terms orig. (& 
avoided their repetition; & om. throughout the sambyke; 1^ om. the 
symphonia v.' (many mss hab.); (gos om. it vv.^- ", and vv.^- ''■ "'; 
the omissions are doubtless due to carelessness. In it has been restored 
by OrC Lu. H has the complete list in v.'. — iji] jr 'ein friih recipirtes 
Wort,' Nold., SG 89, cf. Lagarde, Armenische Studien, §749; found in 
Bibl. Heb., BSira, and now in the papp., APO pap. 4, 1. 3. 

6. I"] So Mich., Str., Gin., Kit. (with philological right); Bar., ??; 
s. Bar, and per con. Kau., §22. There may be a Rabb. collusion with 
?9 Ex. i6'^ In JAram., while jnd is written, it is so spelled for distinction 
from IP, s. Dalm., Gr., p. 71, top. — n p] 'Whosoever'; the same com- 
bination in Heb., e.g.. Is. 63'; cf. n nn sup. 2^'. — Ss"'] (B 35 hs") om., 
supplied hy al.—'^'^y''^ f^5] For the anticipative (demonstrative, not ple- 
onastic) use of the pron. s. Kau., §88; another use repeats the prep., 
e.g., 5'^, as is common in Syr., s. Nold., SG §222, 2. Similar cases in 
Heb., Lev. i3'8, Song s'-—^^^'^-^] mss '^^'^t (s. Str.), also ^W\ Mich. 
and Gin. mg. For the moot question of derivation s. Kau., p. 102, 
Lexx. One development (as here) has a short vowel (Targ., ChrPal., 
Mand.), but M^ (at v."^) and Arab, give sd^at. It is best derived from 
rt. nytt' 'look,' and the form is a fem. ppl., 'the looker,' cf. Germ. ' Augen- 
blick.' EVV unfortunately ' in that hour' ; correctly among recent comm. 


Mein., Behr., Pr., Mar., 'at that moment,' which mng. is required at 
4''. VLeng., following Buxt., noted the right mng., eft. Targ. r\yv = 
Heb. yji, e.g., Ex. t,^,^ = exactly inf. 4'^ The same use is found in 
Syr., e.g., Mk. i" = eiieuq, and in Arab. The same erroneous view of 
the Gr. equivalent in the N.T. appears in the EVV, etc. — nijS] Also 
MSS uV Gin. mg., but s. Bar's note; ij2 7'^ is to be otherwise explained. 
Cf. the Nab. r):r:> n\i 'within it,' Lidz., NE 248. Kau., p. 99, and GB 
suggest 'graphic n'; rather then it would represent the ace. ending, s. 
on n'^>' 6'. But it is best, with Nold., GGA 1884, 102 1, comparing Heb. 
NU and Arab, jiwd, to regard n as radical. In the papp. 1J3 is found, 
used only adverbially, 'herein, herewith,' s. APA ,\ 1. 15, note. — ]inN] 
Akk. word, like the synonyms iiD>ii:n; s. Lexx. and Haupt, AJSL 23, 
245. The suff. in n'^inV v.'' vouches for 'h as masc; the agreement here 
of the fem. adj. Nmp'' is then with the second component of the const, 
complex, Nil:, e.g., a similar case in Heb., Ex. 26", and s. in general 
GK §146, I. However, in v." x-nj is masc; v. ad loc. — 7. n^] 5^°, 6"- '^t 
= papp. MO = Heb. irNo = the common Syr. had. — ]-hoi . . . pj!D'^'] 
'As soon as they were hearing, they were falling down'; ©correctly tr. 
with impfs. — r^Jo] Not a secondary predicate, with 0, but in asynde- 
ton with r'^s:; cf. prn v.". 

8-12. Information is laid before the king against the three 
Jewish officials, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, for their 
refusal to participate in the worship at the dedication. The in- 
formants are naturally certain Chaldceans, members of the caste 
which cherished a natural grievance against those obstinate re- 
ligionists who had yet gained the royal favor. In what way the 
three Confessors exhibited their recalcitrance is not related; 
that attitude is dramatically taken for granted. 

8. V'^^l]<gabr, cf. piim, ium, and for this effect of the labial s. 
Dalm., Gr. §14, 2, Nold., MG §19, and in general. Brock., VG i, §76; 
in Targ. gubrd and gabrd, in Syr., where it is rare, only the latter. Here, 
also vv.'-- "°, it has the sense 'certain,' cf. D^z':i< Ex. i6^° = the common 
Syr. nd'sin; also so na-x Ju. 4*. — r'?"'-'^] So pNiin^ v."; in all other 
cases Kt. preserves orig. y, -ytn; s. Kau., §11, i, b. — pnixip iSjn] Also 
6". The phrase = 'eat the pieces of,' i.e., 'gnaw at'; Behr. eft. Lat. 
rodere; hence 'calumniate, sycophantize against.' This interpretation 
is far more likely than that offered by Lepsius in Der Christl. Orient, 
1897, 152 (cited by Mar.) to the effect that the phrase means to eat 
the table portions assigned to a magnate's client and so to replace him 
in the great man's favor. The phrase is ancient Akk. and wide-spread 
through the Sem. languages, s. Lexx., esp. GB. N.b. Syr. NSip'?oN = 

3^^-^' 205 

b StdPoXoq. I note that the phrase has survived in the criminal argot 
of Paris, ace. to Victor Hugo in his dissertation on that subject in Les 
Miserables, Part 4, Bk. 7, c. 2; 'manger le morceau' = 'denoncer.' For 
the anticipative pron. before the foil. gen. (a usage apparently ignored 
by Kau., Mar.) s. Nold., SG §205, C. For '^0, var. 'ii^ or '■^R = Targ. 
s. Bar. — 9. jnDNi tyj] (B al.) om., Or^-c bToXa^hy-zsq (A uTro^a- 
X6vTs<; 'suborning') slxav. — 10. ^oij'] So correctly; mss, also Mich., 
Hebraizing, ^^^'. — ^'>J?] Denotation otherwise than at 2^*, and with a 
somewhat diff. nuance, v." inf.; here it is the 'sense' of the will, cor- 
rectly SdytJia. The VSS paraphrase here; Aq. tr. with yvf^'^ri. — 
N^rn . . . ?flii] texts om. by haplog. with v.", leaving ■rcdvxa fitvOpwxov 
without construction. — 11. njD>i] @ + ifi e!x6vt t. XP^^Tl- — 12. P'""?"] 
Unique instance in BAram. of this sign of ace. :!•> (not noticed in 
Kau., Gr. §68). The particle is frequent in Targ., prob. in imitation 
of Heb. PN (so Bev., p. 38), frequent in PalSyr. with pron. suflt., rare 
in Syr., s. Nold., SG p. 217. It appears as ni in the Hadad Inscr., as rT> 
in Nab. and Pal., s. Lidz., NE 263. For the particle s. Lexx., s.v. Heb. 
DN. It is contained in Aram, ^tl' '^t?. — ""^y'l] (6 om. 'and,' and are 
prob. original. — il^] = isti; in the papp., also CIS ii, no. 145 B, 1. 6. 
— yrhn] PL, but sing, in mng., with &, cf. (S ly siocoXw aou, and s. on 
jTi'^N 2'^ There is no reason with Mar. to change Kt. to the sing. 
-\^^n, and it is absurd to hold with de R., Mein., Cha., that Kr. -[rha 
indicates a sing. See Kau., §53, Anm. b. — pnSfl] In BAram. generally 
of religious service, so in the Carpentras Inscr. {CIS ii, no. 141, Lidz., 
NE p. 448, Cooke, NSI no. 75), but of human service to royalty in 
APO pap. 50, 1. I, 'to serve in the palace,' and so inf. 7"- ^'. For the 
religious significance of the root cf. the parallel ^:3;' and Lat. colere; so 
with Pr., and Haupt., AJSL 26, 209, against Del., Prolegomena, 176, 
BDB, Kon., Hu<b., who find the original in Akk. paldhu, 'fear'; the 
Akk. mng. is secondary. 

13-18. The king in rage and passion has the recalcitrant Jews 
haled before him. He demands of them, v.^*, whether it is true 
{vs. AVmg RV, whether it is of purpose) that they will not serve 
his god and worship the image. He gives them another chance 
of comphance, v.''', and repeats the statement of the penalty; 
and concludes with the arrogant demand: What kind of a god 
can deliver you out of my hand ? The response of the Confessors, 
v.", is generally translated, We have no need to answer thee, a 
reply which has been designated by some adverse critics as the 
height of arrogance; so Bert., vLeng. Martyrs have actually 
followed various lines of reaction toward their persecutors, and 


an attitude of defiance is at least human. But the term 'make 
answer' is to be interpreted in a legal sense, cf. cnroBoduai \6yov 
Acts 19^° and Syr. equivalents of our phrase used in that sense 
(s. Note), i.e., 'make defence, apology,' and so here: There is no 
need for us to make defence before thee. The indictment is con- 
fessed, there is no apology to make. The defendants throw 
themselves upon their God; yet with the restraint of faith, for 
they admit that he may not interfere, but nevertheless they 
will keep faith and defy the king. Had the story meant that 
they were sure of deliverance, their reply might have been spiri- 
tual arrogance. 

17. There has been ancient debate as to the proper transla- 
tion and reference of the introductory particle, which can only 
mean 'if.' The implied doubt as to the divine ability in the 
obvious 'if our God is able,' was an early stumbling-block to 
the VSS, which agree in rendering the Aram, particle by 'for' 
[our God is able], or H ecce enim, 'for behold,' followed by 
Jewish comm. with ' for ' and by many subsequent scholars with 
'behold.' Also (i> ^ "H carry their scruple into the interpretation 
of the correlative 'if not,' v.^^, disguising or paraphrasing it. 
With the only correct possible translation of the particle as 'if,' 
two interpretations are offered. One is that of AV RW, most 
recently supported by Torrey, viz. : 'if it be so, our God, whom 
we serve, is able to deliver us, etc.; and he will deliver us from 
thy hand, king. 18. But even if he shall not do so, be it 
known unto thee, O king,' etc. This, at first sight, appears to 
avoid the doubt of the divine ability apparently expressed in 
the other line of interpretation, which is here preferred: // our 
God whom we serve is able to deliver us frofn the fiery burning 
furnace and from thy hand, king, he will save {us) ; but if not, 
etc. So now most comm., SVmg^ JV. But to assert with AV, 
Torrey, that God is able, and then to hedge with the possibility 
that he may not interfere, amounts to the same result as the 
expression of uncertainty concerning the divine action at the 
beginning. The 'if not' of v.^* would then be adversative to the 
nearest verb, 'he will deliver,' as Torrey allows. There may 
not then be the absolute confidence in the divine interference 
such as possessed Dan. in c. i (but that in a much simpler mat- 
ter), nevertheless the Confessors are speaking the language of 
'natural piety' in asserting, on the one hand, the divine omnip- 

S''-'^ 207 

otence, and acknowledging, on the other, its possible restrictions 
in any given case. 

13. ^'jn]] Tradition of Sura n — , also elsewhere in fems., s. Bar. = 
^^Q cVDnn] V.19; the half-vowel may be colored in the respective cases 
by the preceding vowel; but cf. :4 and \1 2^'- '°. For a general state- 
ment s. Kau., §13, 4. For the form, from on>, s. Kau., §56, p. 103, Nold., 
MG p. Ill, Earth, Nb., §62, e, and note on Nixn v.". The word appears 
in the Hadad Inscr., 1. 33, with identical spelling, an exceptional in- 
stance in this Hebraic text of n for fem. ending.— -uj layi] (^ asynde- 
ton.— I'D^':'] Cf. the parallel fem. sing. ^'.D'U 6 S both from hpn. The 
former might be treated as impersonal pi., 'they brought,' with © & 
Ehr., but otherwise the Haf. pointing is ^'''T'l^, e.g., 5'; the fem. n\iM 
must then be arbitrarily revised into a pi. (Ehr. proposes nothing here !), 
with © S". In their conjunction the forms must be pass., so (6 H Sa., Ra. 
But, with Kau., p. 67, n., "eine befriedigende Erklarung dieser Passive 
ist noch nicht gelungen." An elder view is that it is a Hofal, so Buxt., 
Lex. col. 247: "Tzere est propter "> sequens," etc.; adopted by Str., §17, 
b, following M. Lambert and J. Barth. Jahn, Lohr boldly vocalize as 
Hof. Either method of obtaining a Hof. is possible. Ingenious but far- 
strained theories are offered by Wellhausen, Deutsche Lit.-ztng, 1887, 
968 (presented by Kamp.), by Behr., and by Powell, Supp. Hebr., p. 43. 
Torrey, Notes, II, 231, regards the case as a most interesting example 
of 'alternative pointings,' i.e., an attempt to combine the Hof. and the 
Hif.; but it cannot be said that the combination is obvious. 14. ny;] 
(6 ou? X. auvtSwv. , i.e., as a form of py ! — ^Ti^] Kau. cites, §67, 2, spe- 
cifically as '^'l?'-, but without any authority, although noted with ap- 
proval by others. ® otd xi; d aXr/Owt; = ^ NniJ'ipa = 3verene = AEz. 
HDNH, so Sa., AV JV. Buxt. eft. Heb. 'i;!? (Nu. 35-°- -, out of murder- 
ous intent) and tr., 'is it of purpose?' and so AVmg RVV Mar. (glos- 
sary), Kon., Hwb. But the root is absent in Aram., the form is doubt- 
ful, and the mng. is not applicable here. Bev., Behr., suggest ^T:*^ "*" ^:, 
cf. 2°, corresponding with 0, etc. But the word has now been found in the 
ostrakon published by Lidz., Altaram. Urk., 1. 12, cf. p. 12: t<"\sn '7n[i;'^] 
hSn niSd •'jn, 'He will ask whether true {cf. ddn inf. loO are (■'jn 3d fem. 
pi. pron. as copula) these words.' This early occurrence forthwith pre- 
cludes the proposed Pers. etymology, connecting with xiin. Lidz. ven- 
tures an explanation with the brief note, "vielleicht ist es eine erstarrte 
Kurzbildung vom St. pis." But Torrey in his Notes, I, 261, had already 
derived the Bibl. word from *ii"i = Arab, wasada, 'be firm,' and spe- 
cifically as the verbal noun '*'^;? with shortening of the vowel, as in 
xcn v.", then ^l^'l' > **1?^^. He is well justified in his Notes, II, 231, in 
holding that his derivation is corroborated by the new-found text. 

15. majr] For the following aposiopesis of the apodosis, cf. exx. in 


Heb., e.g., Ex. 32'^ and s. GK §167, i; for Syr. Duval, GS §416, Nold., 
SG §382. Similarly for N.T. grammar cf. Lu. 19^, 22*', 2 Th. 2"-, etc. 
__n^x Nin-iD] xin is not here the copula. Actually the pron. here 
emphasizes the interrogative, 'what (at all) god is there?' A parallel 
with another demonstrative element is found in the Aramaic boundary 
inscription published by the writer in JAOS 1907, 164^., 1. 2, riN n ]d 
'whosoever' thou art who,' cf. Akk. mannu atta larrn, Behistun Inscr., 
1. 105. Similar is the Heb. nr nc, Aram., n nn, sup. 2^', etc. In Targ., 
Syr. this combination continues in mannu, etc. ; for this emphasizing use 
of enclitic M attached to various parts of speech, s. Nold., SG §221; 
Dalm., GV. §19. — p3:aTi»'"i] S. Lexx. for this form of Akk. origin, rt. 2r;. 
In Heb. 3iy = 'leave alone,' and so in Stem I of Akk., but in HI, i, 
iisezib, it has the sense of 'letting go,' and so 'delivering, saving.' This 
development explains the difficulty encountered in the law of Ex. 23^: 
'If thou seest thy enemy's ass crouching under his burden, thou shalt 
refrain from leaving him alone' (^'<'? '?:"^'?); there follows ''°>! ^^'O ^'v, 
translated usually, e.g., by JV, 'thou shalt surely release it with him,' 
i.e., the same vb. and stem in opposite mngs. in the one period. Others, 
e.g., Baentsch, demand a correction of aryn 2\y into some other vb. But, 
after the two mngs. of Akk. ezebii in Stems I and III, we may simply 
change 2r;?n into the Hif., and, like uiezib, gain the mng. 'dehver.' The 
abs. inf. is, to be sure, K^al, but the inf. need not agree with the finite 
vb. in stem. Cf. the Hif. of Heb. noi, generally 'lassen, ablassen,' but 
also, e.g.. Job 7'', 'loslassen.' Similarly Eng. 'lose' and 'loose' are from 
the same rt., as Prof. R. G. Kent kindly informs me. — ^y..] So Bar., 
Str., Kamp. = IT; Mich., Gin., Kit., Mar. 'T.. = (S Or? Lu. But the 
sing, belongs to the Sem. idiom and is corroborated by v.". 

16. uj nnyi] OrP It alone have conj.— '^i^^ ^.t^^] The dis- 
courteous vocative of the Mass. pointing was not only impossible in 
etiquette but also in the spirit of the writer. Ra. notes the discourtesy 
and expatiates on it with zest, and Sa. tr. '0 Neb.'; the interpretation 
is ancient, appearing in Jer., who notes that 'Neb.' is not accompanied 
in ^ (as in (g) by a following 'king,' Bert. tr. 'to king Neb.,' and Hitz. 
insists on the necessity of revising the punctuation accordingly. Behr. 
follows suit, but incorrectly alleging that (5 read in sequence ^aatXeO 
(so Kamp., Mar.), but ^aatXsu is sub aslerisco and is not original. The 
general usage is xs^o '3J, but with exceptions, e.g., 2^', 4^^, 6'° (poss. 
with emphasis on 'king' in some cases, so Hitz.). Torrey, Notes, I, 262, 
believes that in the original text the two words were transposed, and so 
indeed they appear in §. — V^^'^] So Bar, Str., vs. Mich., Gin., Kit. 
jinsfn. The ppl. "i?*!?, vs. an assumed adj. '^^'Q, is approved by the equiv- 
alent in Syr., s. Kau., §58, 2, e; but Torrey, I.e., argues for ha-. — 
HOT hy] (S> erroneously construe with DJHD. — imannV ojne] For the vb. 

3^^"^' 209 

with cognate ace. c/. xay ainn 2"; similarly 2YZf in Heb. with double 
ace, e.g., I Ki. 12'. For the Indo-European origin of the word s. Lexx., 
e.g., Armenian palgam. (For the formation cf. j^pd i^, and id.^d 'idol,' 
appearing in Torrey's CiUcian Inscr., JAOS 35, 369; this is also found 
in transliteration in (8 at Is. 8-^ where xaTotxpa is to be read on Sym.'s 
authority in place of corrupt -rcaipta, s. Nestle, DB 4, 441a. The word 
appears also in the Targ. and freq. in Aram, magical texts.) For the 
phrase here the common Syr. equivalent is NOJno ani 'give answer, 
render account,' and also a more exact equivalent is found in Pesh. Mt. 
15-', 'D ''JD. Zirkel, Untersuchungen uber den Prediger (1792), cited by 
McNeile, Eccles., 42, followed by Torrey, Ezra Studies, 177, presented 
the novel theory that 'fl is from <ff}iy^<x. But this fairly uncommon Gr. 
word, while meaning 'voice, utterance, language,' is never used in the 
sense invariably given by Aram, usage to 'd. which always = nji and 
Xoyoq, the correspondence being substantiated by the phrase equiva- 
lences cited. The objection made by Torrey that no proper Indo- 
European derivation can be found is fairly met by a note by Gehman, 
JBL 43, 320. The Gr. dTvoSouvat Xdyov is rendered in Pesh. at Acts 
19" by the idiomatic tneppa^ riihd, 'make apology, defence.' Our 
phrase also occurs in Odes of Solomon, 24', and can be explained there 
only by the sense claimed here (Harris ad he. is unsuccessful in inter- 

17. '■''' \\i] = 'if,' as in the condition nS ]n, v.*', never 'behold,' 
as in Heb. But the VSS unite in ignoring the conditional 'if God is 
able to save,' and tr. by 'for,' as noted in Comm. Consequently the 
syntax was recast : ' Behold {or, for) our God is able to save us from the 
furnace, and from thy hand he will save.' So Sa., AEz., most of the 
earUer comm., GV, CBMich., Ew., SVmg, Ehr., etc. The correct tr. 
'if was recognized by deDieu, repeated by vLeng., and is accepted by 
most modern comm. As indicated above, two interpretations of the 
condition have been proposed. That accepted by AV RVV tr. in>x jn 
by 'if it be so,' i.e., if the king's order is to be executed, and Torrey 
defends this by comparing ^''.^ 2 Ki. 10'', 'and be it so.' For considera- 
tion of this interpretation s. Comm. above. The interpretation ac- 
cepted there is also that of JV. — '*^?-**] For the sufl. s. Kau., §53, 
Anm. a. 9 (B Q V h" = Hw-b) ignored the suff.; 05 has a plus.— 18. 
nV p] (K and & persist in ignoring any condition, and U dodges it. — 
N3m] (B 89 229 = E) om. 

19-23. Naturally enough the despot's features were trans- 
formed with rage at the Confessors' pertinacity. He absurdly 
ordered the flaming-fiery-furnace to be heated seven times hot- 
ter than was necessary or was wont, v.*^ The strongest men of 


the army were ordered to bind the victims and to cast them 
down into the fiery kiln, v.^°— all this to forestall any interven- 
tion of gods or men. The three Jews were accordingly bound, 
clad in their full suits of clothes, mantles and trousers and hats ; 
they had attended the ceremony in full court dress. The three 
terms of dress are variously interpreted in ($ and and so in 
subsequent VSS, and have induced extraordinary variety of in- 
terpretations. The Note substantiates the tr. of GV AV, ' coats, 
hosen (trousers), hats' against RV JV. The defiance of the king 
to the Confessors' faith in the excessive heating of the furnace 
had its retribution; the executioners had taken them up to the 
top of the furnace (s. Comm. at v.*) and cast them in, when a 
lambent _^awe of fire killed the executioners, v.^^. The Confessors 
themselves were fallen down bound into the furnace, v.^^, when a 
prodigy attracted the astonishment of the king, vv.^^ ^ — for such 
is the connection of thought. 

At this point is interpolated the great Apocryphon of the 
Christian VSS; for judgment against its originality s. Int., §4, a. 
The same opinion is expressed very positively by Torrey, Notes, 
I, 264, and at length by M. Sprengling, AJSL 37, 132-135. 

19. °..>'] For this vs. °,? v.^', etc., the usual construct form, by an 
arbitrary distinction, s. on iSd 2*"; 'x here = 'fashion, cut,' of the face. 
In 5*, etc., I'.' in pi. is so used with njtt", and so & renders here. — unsf n 
Kt., ''J'-^f'^' Kr.] The pi. of Kt. is to be explained as by attraction to 
the pi. iniDjN in the construct phrase; s. Kau., §98, i, b, and for numer- 
ous parallels in Heb. GK §146, i. The pi. should be pointed ^i — with 
Bev., Behr., al., vs. u — with Bar, p. 96, Gin. For the phrase cf. 5^ and 
Comm. there.— uj i3>-i] = (6 B al.; Kw.b QrC (AQ 106 al.) Lu. 
asyndeton; the preceding asterisk in @s niay refer to the conj. — njy] 
8mss Ken., (6 § 15 om. — ^.'.°] Rt. nix, used of heating baths in Targ., 
Talm.; for syncope of n s. on nhd v.-. — ^';yy in] I.e., 1X7; this mul- 
tiplicative expression is found in an APO pap. i, I, 3, fjSx nn 'a thousand 
times.' I find it also in Syr. in g> to this bk. at ii^- ^^, where °'rf taken 
as °?W is translated jnn nn, 'twice.' And I note the similar phrase 
n^Niini NDD in in Lagarde, Clem. Rom., p. 52, 1. 13. Otherwise the Syr. 
grammarians note only the use with 2 prefixed to the second numeral, 
s. Nold., 5G §241; similarly in JAram., which also uses, e.g., pmn nn Vy 
(also such a case in Mand., Lidz., Mand. Lit., p. 152), as well as i^J3f 
'times,' s. Dalm., Gr. §23, 2. Kau., §66, 2, thinks our phrase is an 
abbreviation of the usual Syr. idiom. But it may have come from 
reminiscence of recitation of multiplication tables; s. Hilprecht, BE 20, 

^19-23 211 

pt. I, pp. 14^., for Bab. multiplication tables, which generally employ 
A-RA 'times,' but one table is given without this symbol. Prob. the 
obscure t^iz'i^ nji^'xi Jer. 16" represents the same idiom. — ^'H] Pass, 
ppl. of ntn 'see.' Correctly (& sSet. In Rabb. both MQ and Heb. 'i^") 
are used in the sense 'seen to' = 'fit'; Sa., 'necessary.' SeeLexx.for 
similar uses of nxi. H Consiieuerat is practically equivalent, adopted by 
GV, EVV: 'it was wont.' lu>c, zlc, ziXoq iy.vAji, i.e., rdg. "i" for Sy (so 
in 7MSS Ken., 3MSS de R). Apparently regarded nrn as from rt. nin and 
treated it as reinforcing n>inS and so tr. adverbially, efg zi'koq, 'ut- 
terly.' ^'^''^i' strangely enough goes its own way, (anto qtiam solebat. 
& tr. 'over what it was heated.' — 20. fiaj] = 'certain,' cf. v.*. — 
■ID ''■?.-?;'] See Kau., §59, i, e. The phrase is Biblical, having in O.T. 
the sense of 'trained soldiers,' etc., s. Lexx. s.v., as well as of 'strong, 
valorous men.' — uj nap] Or? Lu. Q al. 31 om. conj. — ndidS] N.h. 
asyndeton with nnc:?, cf. the ppls. v.'' — phnS] For the prep. xuS is 
to be expected as v."', etc., or Sn, which appears in the papp.; but cf. 
Heb. •? iSa', e.g., 2 Ch. 24".— 21. "^^^t] With following 1'°"! instance of 
the pass, of the first Stem, so-called Peil, = Arab, ^utila. This was 
recognized by Nold., GGA 1884, p. 1016; by Bev. on "hi 2^', Behr., p. 
vii. Mar., Gr. §32, al. This against the elder view that it is a verbal 
development of the pass, ppl.; so Kau., §29, 2, Str., §12, a. Tradition 
of i^ varies between the writing of i plene or defective, s. the exx. in 
Kau., I.e. The same formation in strong vbs. appears six times in APO, 
s. p. 270, all written plene. We have to suppose that the vowel under 
the accent came early to be stressed and underwent heightening of a 
sort, cf. Heb. hikttl. Similar archaic passive forms have been retained 
in Heb., s. GK §53, u. The distinction between the Peil and the ppl. 
appears in vbs. n//S, as noted by Luzzatto, p. 32, n; s. Kau., p. 80. 

pnnSanDi pnv^-v^ja pn^S^iD; for 2° :^r. liniu'Ms = Qr. Kt. and Kr.] 
'ID again v.-^ On these terms s. Lexx., Andreas in Mar.'s Glossary, 
Bludau, p. loi, Krauss, Talm. Archaologie, s.vv., and esp. S. A. Cook, 
'The Articles of Dress in Dan. iii, 21,' Journal of Philology, 26 (1899), 
306-313, with wealth of Classical citation. Since for each of these three 
terms every category of gear for head, body and legs has been adduced 
(e.g., the EW and margins), the possible permutations are many. Of 
the three one can now be surely defined, the last, '"\d = Akk. karballatu, 
'helmet,' found in the Nak§-i-Rustam Inscr. of Darius I, §3 (Weissbach, 
Die Keilinschriften der Achaefneniden, 89), also in late Akk. texts as 
prob. 'hats' (Meissner, Supplement, 50). With this agrees the mng. in 
Talm. and Syr., 'cap' and 'cock's comb,' as imitating the pointed Pers. 
cap. Oppcrt, on Darius' inscr., Records of the Past, Ser. i, ix, 76, con- 
nected the word with xup^aufa {-alt > -ait), which appears as the 
pointed cap of the Scythians (Her., vii, 64) and the Persians (Aristopha- 
nes, Birds, 486 /., with satirical ref. to the strutting, cocklike appear- 


ance of the Persian). With the third term = hat, the first in the series 
of garments must be the body garment, coat or mantle, and so '"o is 
specified as the principal garment in v.". The vb. is found in i Ch. 
i5"j '^"'>'° ^2130, 'wrapt in a tunic,' from rt. S^a. Such is the usual 
mng. of '-»D in Targ. and Talm., and so here Ra., AEz.; and so Theodt. 
defines it, •rcspat/.wv TCEpt^oXaiwy eioT). Further, Isidore of Seville, 
Etymologiae {PL Ixxx, 688), explains it as 'fluxa et sinuosa uestimenta 
de quibus legitur in Daniele,' a definition ignored by Cook, who only 
notices an alternative given by Isidore that 'some' define it as 'hats.' 
The rt. is doubtless "^^d. 'carry, wear,' in papp., Heb., Syr. (for the r 
cf. ND-13 ."^^nD sup., etc.). The second term 'Jd must then be the leg- 
gear. So a tradition of its mng. as 'breeches' in Midr. Echa, i, i (but 
the rdg. is uncertain, s. Buxt., Bev.), and ace. to one mng. given in the 
Syriac lexicographers = Arab, randt, 'leggings' (PSmith, col. 3098). 
But Sa., AEz., Jeph. tr. it by 'tunics' = RV JV. Its etymology remains 
obscure. JHMich., CBMich. connected it with -viiiamc,, and so Hommel, 
Geog. u. Gesch. i, 211, as a gloss to the following term. This order of 
coat, trousers, hat is corroborated by an appropriate passage in Pollux 
Archaeologos (c. 180 a.d.; ed. Bekker, vii, 58): Ilepawv Ihix xiivSoq (a 
Median upper garment) xal dva^upk (leg-gear) xal xtdpa, rjv xotl 
xup^aabv xaXoOat. Pollux, ensuite, cites the poet Antiphanes, who 
in a verse similarly itemizes axoXaf, axIXeat, Ttapott. Cook ignores 
this substantiation of l^'s order. — But the traditions of the VSS have 
complicated the definitions of the terms. (S has only two, uTcoSTjtxata, 
Ttapat; all three, aapd^apot, xtipat, 7:sptxvT5;i,{3£<; = H hraccae, 
iiarae, calceamenta ; & also the three, the first two in transliteration, 
the third infixed after the foil, 'and their clothing,' as )in^;7:]ip = Syr. 
'cap' or 'mitre,' so agreeing with the etymology given above. On 
basis of these discrepancies in the VSS and after Hommel, Cook argues 
for the elimination of 'aD as a gloss (but why was it inserted?), and 
thinks he can simplify the resultant. But I believe that CS did have 'aij, 
but rdg. it as pnv^j-io = i^-x x. xscpaXwv auxwv; i.e., (B read the third 
term as xtapac and then shifted the erroneously read second term after 
it so as to obtain 'hats on their heads.' Unfortunately followed (6 in 
keeping tiaras in second place, removing the second term to third 
place, but translating it properly by TC£pixvr)[j,fSe(;; and 15 followed 
suit. Thus possibly the text of H^ may be vindicated from the VSS and 
the rdgs. of the latter explained. — The history of interpretation of sar- 
belah may deserve particular notice. 0's sarabara = J^wib jg explained 
by Suidas as a Pers. garment, and it was applied in the West to the 
baggy Oriental trousers; and so Sym. (on Jer.'s authority) dva^upfSeq, 
'leggings' (but (gsmg attributes to Sym. 'shoes'). Interestingly enough 
Jer. notes that and Aq. read saraballa and not ' as corruptly sarabara ' ; 
if so, our text has assimilated the former to the latter better known 

319-23 ,,3 

word. And at v.-' "B (not Am.) actually has sarahala, prob. from 21, 
where his mng. 'breeches' would have been out of place. We are not 
helped out by Krauss's statement, i, 172, that the Talm. knows the 
word in three senses, 'mantles,' 'breeches,' 'shoes.' Scholars have nat- 
urally assimilated the word to the well-known Arab, sirwdl (Pers. sal- 
war?), 'trousers,' by which Sa., Jeph. tr. here. But Fraenkel, Aram. 
Fremdworter im Arab., 47, also knows that word as 'coats.' — jininaSi] 
For w'n? pass, katul-lorvn, rare in Aram., s. Kau., §57, e, and Nold., 
MG §101, SG §113; a few exx. are found in the papp., s. Sachau, APO 
p. 268. ignores the word, and Bludau (p. loi) and Cook (p. 311) 
doubt its originality; but (& witnesses to it. By this general term may 
be meant 'their other garments,' with EVV, or it may be summarizing. 
— Nm^p'] On authority of (gs {vs. (gc) omitted in orig. (&. 

22. n p NJT '73|"' "?;] = 'because of the fact'; a similar accumulation 
of preps, in Syr., Clemens Rom., ed. de Lagarde, 31, nSt S"J3t Nin pi. 
Sprengling's suggestion to tr. 'at this juncture' makes no improvement. 
— nsi'nc] = HDsnnc 2^^; the Grr. inconsistently in the two places. — 
^.'.^'] The first syllable 'a > 'e > e, as in Syr. mro (s. Nold., SG §174); 
another instance of this phenomenon in BAram., J^ Ezr. 5'^ (but this 
under influence of tone); Kau., §15, e, aptly c//. Heb. ■^'''?' ^'??. There 
is no reason with Ehr. to rewrite ^1% — mifi''] Also 7'- '* = Syr. n-i\-i>; 
as a fem. form to be compared with the advs. with fem. -t, e.g., ''^Tr' 6*' 
and numerous cases in Syr., s. Nold., SG §155; in Heb., e.g., ^p**"! may 
be compared. In papp. ■\\-ii = Syr. appears. — For the Gr. texts of vv. 
!2b. 23 ,^ infra. — V^'^] Rt. p'^D, s. Kau., §44, b. For the progressive as- 
similation of / with s (which appears in the Aramaizing Ps. 139, v.', 
pDx) cf. Syr. "^rK, nezlun > nezzun, and s. Brock., VG i, p. 159. — uj n3;"i] 
Orc Lu. asyndeton. — sao;:'] Also lu n p^ou' 7', v.:'N 2''2r Job i8\ 
The earlier etymology eft. Syr. 'sdh 'burn' as = Arab, sahba. But 
Arab, should then be sabba, and Bev., followed by Behr., Mar., con- 
nects with Arab, sab'ib, 'wisp of hair,' etc., and tr. 'streak, tongue' [of 
flame]. This Arab. rt. has primary mng., 'cut,' hence Talm. ^'?'''^' 
'chip,' or 'flame-spark.' However, Akk. sabdbu — 'burn,' and the 
writer has found rt. D3'^' 'burn' in a late Aram, text, Aratn. Incant. 
Texts, no. 28, 1. i, and it appears in the Mand., Lidz., Mand. Liturgien, 
132, I. 9, aossr.— 23. P'^'D';''?] For the assured leldttekon s. Bar's note 
and Kau., p. 120. The combination -dtte- is corroborated by the similar 
Syr. forms for 'three . . . ten of them,' s. Nold., SG §149. The base 
of the present numeral is the fem. teldtt; the subsequent forms in the 
Syr., 'arbe'attaihon, etc., are then analogy-formations, even as Bev. 
suggests that the pi. element ai-e is after analogy of teraihon, 'two of 
them'; so also Brock., SG §170. This is preferable to an e.xplanatiT:i 
by Kon., Lgb., i, p. 53. — uj ^2•;^] E A Q Lu. al. asyndeton. — niij] O 
(B 8mss Jj) cm.; corroborated by (& Ivsicuptaev (?). — iSdj] Properly 


'were fallen down'; for this sense in Heb., common in the act. ppl. s. 
BDB 657 b, and cf., with Behr., the similar use in Pesh., e.g., Mt. 3"' = 
piXXsaBxt. The v. is accordingly circumstantial to v.-^ and the usual 
paragraph distinction between them is unnecessary; this against Cha. 
that "this V. is an otiose repetition of 21b." 

22b. 23 in the Grr. These VSS are in corrupt condition before the 
Joint of the Apocryphon. V. -'', 'those men,' etc., is omitted by (also 
E). The omission is to be explained as a case of haplog., an early scribe 
having passed over the first of two equal lines, each beginning with 
'those men'; so also Torrey, Notes, I, p. 264. The lacuna is supplied 
by Or^- ^, but for their ^2X(X)ovir2s Lu. has StapiXXovraq (37 51 231 c) 
or IvSta^. These vbs. mean 'to accuse' and might be taken as perver- 
sions of (j'a.)pciXX£tv. But & similarly has |inii-np "i?dn, 'their accusers.' 
We have then to hold that Lu. was following some current Syrian in- 
terpretation of ipDH, which does not = ^ or pdXXstv. 05, vv.^- ", is 
well-nigh hopeless in its bearing on l|. At least syntax might be pre- 
served if at end of v.^- a comma, not a period, with Swete, were used. 
V.*^'' may be a var. of v.". The actual equivalent of ^ v."-^ is (6 v.-'% 
which is a fair paraphrase of 2|; then l|, v.-', is summed up in (5, v.-^''. 

24-30. The miraculous deliverance of the Confessors. The 
three men were fallen down into the fire when a marvel appears 
to the king. Dramatically he is made to ask of his courtiers 
whether it was not three men bound who had been cast into the 
furnace, and then he states the contradiction of his own eyes: 
four men loose [the bonds had been consumed !], walking in the 
midst of the fire withotit harm upon them, and the appearance of 
the fourth like that of a divinity [ lit. a son of Deity]. It is not said 
that the others saw this strange being, and he disappears from 
the narrative as immediately as he was introduced. Both in 
this term 'son of Deity,' iTi^t^ 12, and in the synonym for it 
which is later put in the king's mouth, 'his angel,' the latter is 
given language entirely genuine to Aramaic Paganism ; his terms 
are taken neither from Babylonian mythology, as Heng., pp. 
158^., and Keil argue, nor from the Greek ideas of the sons of 
the gods, with Bert., p. 29. As in the Bab., the pi. ildni was 
used as a singular, so also in the Aram, the pi. 'eldhtn, s. Note 
on 2'^, even as the D\1^Sn ""iD of the O.T. was a common Semitic 
concept. Also the term 'angel' was appropriate to common 
WSem. diction as expressing an appearance-form of Deity. It 
occurs in the Phoen. niniyy^^a 'Angel-of- Ash tart,' ^J?3D^D 
'A.-of-Baal'; and it is now identified by Lidz., Eph., i, 256 {cf. 

324-30 215 

Dussaud, Notes de mythologie syrienne, 1903, pp. 24 ff., cited by 
Cumont, Les religions orieniales, n. 23 to c. 5), with the first 
element in the Palmyrene deity's name ^122^12 (not malk-, 
'king') 'Mal'ak-Bol,' i.e., 'Angel-of-B.' In these cases the 'an- 
gel' is similar to the primitive 'Angel of Yhwh,' and is properly 
a pn^S ID. Also the preceding formula in this v., 'Blessed 
(*|''12) is the God of,' etc., is typical of good Syrian religion, 
occurring in the Palmyrene formula SD^>?^ Tl'Ci^ T"'-' which 
is not necessarily a borrowing from the Jewish {cf. sup. 2^0), as 
Lidz. holds, Eph. i, 256; and Torrey corroborates the writer's 
opinion, s. his remarks, JAOS 43, 143. As to the theological in- 
terpretation of the son of God, the Jewish comm. identify him 
simply as an angel; Sa. tr. 'like the angels'; ace. to Ra. he was 
the angel whom Neb. had seen at the calamity to Sennacherib's 
host, for Neb. had accompanied that expedition, and hence could 
recognize the celestial being; AEz. identifies with the Angel-of- 
Yh\vh appearances. GV RV JV tr. here 'a son of the gods,' 
with Sym. But 0's vlw deov 'einem Gottessohn' is correct. 
Early Christian exegesis naturally identified the personage with 
the Second Person of the Trinity, so Hipp., Chrys., al., and AV 
'the Son of God,' following Miinster; but this view has been 
generally given up by modern Christian comm. (so among the 
Roman Catholic interpreters Knab.). And Jer. takes exception 
to this identification: "sed nescio quomodo rex impius Dei 
Filium uidere mereatur." Also the epithet in the king's mouth 
for the God of the Confessors, S^'^J?, v^|naT09, 'the Most 
High,' is equally germane to WSem. Pagan language and 
thought. It has its parallel in Heb. \vb]il, which, however, ap- 
pears generally as a term outside of Hebrew circles, e.g., the 
God Most High of Melkisedek, while Balaam is 'acquainted with 
the knowledge of the Most High,' Nu. 24'®, and the term is put 
in the mouth of the king of Assyria, Is. 14". This Elyon is 
vouched for in the Phcen. religion by Philo of Byblos (KXcovu 
6 v^lrLaTo^)^ and as v-^iajo^ appears in the later syncretistic 
Syrian religions, e.g., the inscriptions of Palmyra; s. Bathgen, 
Beitrdge, 83, Cumont, op. cit., 153 ff., and especially Hehn, Die 
bibl. u. babyl. Gottesidee, pp. 258-264, for a comprehensive state- 
ment on this theologumenon, inclusive of the Bab. field. In 
Judaistic Gr. we find it constantly attributed to Pagan speakers, 


e.g., I Esd. 2^, Acts i6", or to demons, Mk. 5^; it is frequent in 
Enoch (s. Cha. on 99^), Twelve Testaments, etc., and in Syriac 
Christianity (it is, as meraiyemd, the constant term for God, 
e.g., in the Odes of Solomon). This monotheistic term became 
current in circles more or less influenced by Judaism; s. Schiirer, 
GJV 3, 174. The epithet is correctly put in the mouth of a 
Pagan king. 

In his summons to the Confessors to come forth (v.^^^), the 
king thus makes his confession of their God as the Highest, 
stimmus Deus, in the monotheizing language of the late period. 
They come forth and the dignitaries in the king's suite assemble 
and see that the fire had had no power over them (vv.^^^- "»); 
in a well-put climacteric, their bodies were not touched, nor their 
hair singed, nor their garments a whit changed, and not even a 
breath of fire was perceptible upon them (v.-"''). The king then 
utters a praise of the God who had protected his servants in 
their absolute trust in him, even to the facing of death (v.^^). 
And he proceeds (v.^") to utter an edict that whoever should 
speak the slightest thing amiss against their God should be pun- 
ished as culprits against the realm {cf. 2^). The edict moves in 
terms of current polytheism; the Jewish God does not become 
the king's God, but, as so severe a critic of the book as Bert, 
admits (p. 255), he merely remains their God. But his religion 
is formally recognized as a religio licita with its rights to respect 
from all in the realm. Such a pronunciamento may well have 
been true to the official protection of religions under the later 
empires, and in fact this recognition of toleration was all that 
the Jews desiderated. 

30 . The Reward of the Three Confessors. It is simply stated 
that the king promoted (so EW; lit. prospered) the three Jews 
in their posts in the civil administration of the province of 
Babylon. In this there is no contradiction to the sequel of c. 2. 

24. '^l'?] This true n'/S vb. is overlooked by Kau. in his appropriate 
§40. — nSnanna] 'In a hurry,' as also 2". — '''?^"'i'';^] Doubtless Pers., 
but the etymology is much disputed. A derivation as = simul-iudex 
was suggested by v. Bohlen, which is denied by Bev., who is again con- 
tradicted by Behr. The most recent discussion is by Rashdall, JQR i, 
338/., who argues that the word can be explained from a supposititious 
khaddbara, 'sword-bearer'; the title might then be purely honorific. 
Steuernagel, ZDPV 35, 95, would correct 3 to j and cjt. NnDi::n APO 

324-30 217 

pap. 8, 11. 4. 23; but 2 is supported by (5's interpretation. C5 here and 
V." ol 9(Xoc, cf. 5' exalpot (for inuoiJi), i.e., as from ">?? 'associate.' 
The benai lewUd of (35^"^ to v.^' expresses the same thought. Blud., 
p. 100, eft. iffXot, as title of the highest officials at the Ptolemaic court, 
but the title goes back to Pers. usage; s. for various refi. Holm, Griech. 
Gesch., I, 162, Cumont, Les religions orientales, 165, Deissmann, Bible 
Studies, 167, and Licht vom Osten*, 324. (&'s interpretation is satisfactory' 
here as referring to the courtiers in attendance. varies : here [Asy taxave?, 
V." Suviiaxat, 4^^ xupavvot, 6' uiuaTot. ®smg j^as Njiinn 'leaders,' 
attributed to (attribution properly questioned), an etymology as 
though from "i3t (so Field); the tr. may be Aq.'s; and so Sa., kmjwdd. 
Similarly the Jewish comm. attempt Heb. etymologies.— r^>] The 
form is corroborated by PalAram., e.g., P''';^, pn;:', s. Dalm., Gr., p. 
290; for the penultimate accent cf. Kau.'s explanation, §47, p. 89, 'an 
attempt to preserve the consonantal strength of the Yod'; he eft. the 
pi. '^V?,? > Syr. malhe. For the generally adopted revision to ^^'i s. at 
2*.—^?'?:] 'The truth, true!' = NHeb. V^\, 'Yes'; cf. 3>p p 2\ 
Behr. prefers to regard as fem., or as adv., eft. n-i>n'' v.'^, so Mar., but 
it is masc. emph. — The Grr. supply a joint with the Apocryphon: (6 
■/.. eyivETo (= VIM?) £v xw dxoOaat x. ^aatX^a u;i,vouvx(jL)v auxwv, and 
then follows 1^, x6xe Nx^. xxX.; /.. Nap. t^xouusv ujjlvouvxwv auxuv /.. 
iOa6;jiaaev. Also orig. (S om. the passage from jnjJ kSh to icni njy, 
v.-^, which was supplied by Hex., the complement = OrC in the revi- 
sion of 0; the fault arose from haplog. of i<^7\ v.-^, and nh v.". 

25. ^J-*? ^'^i ■^'^xi "V] d X. ekev 6 paa. (= Hex. plus) \lw eyci. 
In texts B solus has 6 Se (Rom. ed., SSe Swete) syw. The var. rdgs. 
are: x. elirsv 5 paa., tSou eyw (A 106 al. = OrC?; V 'I'Ss lyw); Q c al. 
5)Se eyw; Or^ iicey-pfOir] x. elxev, & 5g lyw; Lu. dicoxpcOeii; elxev x. fSoi 
eyd). Of these wSe is corruption of Ss; tSou was Origen's revision. 
But B's Se is authentic; om. i::ni njy, understood ^'7 as ^^, and 
supplying the conj. obtained 6 Se (so prop. vs. Swete), i.e., 'and he 
[said].' This classicism is prob. unique in the Gr. Bible. — 1''?;7-] So 
with Haf. pointing at 4'''; otherwise Aram, dialects have Pael (= Piel 
in late Bibl. Heb.). A few mss (s. Bar, Str.) read r?'?v"?, which is pre- 
ferred by Kamp., Lohr, Mar. Is this a Mass. fancy in the two passages, 
to obtain perhaps a denominative, 'walking after the Halaka'? The 
asyndeton is preserved by (B'^- vs. (S^ 0. — 3n] go Bar, Str., Kit., but 
Mich., Gin. '^?n (yet 6-^ Gin. -^H); the former is correct, as Syr. shows; 
ef. r:^>!, Ecc. 4S s".— N^rai Kt., ^^'^:^1 Kr.] See Kau., §ir, i, b.— 
I>n?N na] = ^literatim; (S ayy^Xou Oeoij {cf. v.='); Aq. u'tiT) OsoG = T^ 
filio Dei; Sym. on Jer.'s authority [opiotwixa] u'lwv Oswv. — 26. uj i^yi] 
(g asyndeton.— «:^!? Kt., '^iT< l^r.] Kau., §59, i, 6, Mar., Gr. §84, 
regard as a k:ittdl or h:dttdl form, but the doubling is secondary; ef. Heb. 


'^J??; with Syr. 'ellttd, further the adv. ^7^. 6', and s. on niN 2''. — 
rPDi] In parallelism with ji^jdhd v.^', vs. M's verse division. — 27. 
]i\i^iDr\v] For pointing s. at v.'. — 'The satraps,' etc.] The first three 
terms as in v.'', the fourth from v.^*; the latter as brevet title occurs 
last. fiS and vary from their translations in v.^. In the third place (S 
has apxcrcaxptwTat, cf. Jos. 21' = nux I'i'Xi. — jnn] Prob. asyndeton 
with pi^'JonD, rather than secondary predicate, v. sup. v.'; cf. Mar., 
Gr. §129, e ('um zu sehen'), who eft. 7^, etc. Kau.'s note, §102, that 
asyndeton ordering of nouns and sentences is rare is erroneous; it is a 
marked feature of BAram., and in the orig. texts was probably still 
more fully represented, as even the Grr. indicate. For vbs. in asyndeton 
s. Nold., SG §337. — iu arz'] ': as masc. only here and 7', "otherwise 
fem., as in Syr. Similarly the Arab. ?idr is fem. in most cases, rarely 
masc," Bev.; cf. Wright, Gr. i, §292, rem. b: ndr "was anciently of 
both genders." The following nn is 'exceptionally fem., like the Arab. 
rth,' Behr. See on these two words Feghali, Dii genre grammatical en 
semitique, 1924, pp. 77, 78.— P^''???.] Bar, Str., Gin.; iinca-j Mich., 
Kit.] The former is the Occidental rdg., the latter the Oriental, ace. to 
Gin. {cf. his Int., pt. 2, c. 9); the universal Kr. identifies the former with 
the latter and agrees with the VSS, except "& = pi. (early witness to 
the pi. Kt. of ^). The pi. was induced by the pi. in v.-', but here the 
sing, is quite proper, cf. following iin-i-Ni, and n.b. the support of the 
VSS; Behr., Kamp., Mar. argue in the opposite direction. — lu nn] 
Ehr., referring to his notes on Ju. i6^ Job 14', argues that this is not 
'Brandgeruch, . . . sondern die geringste Wirkung . . . des Feuers'; 
but 'a smell of fire' is perfectly suitable here, pna refers to the men, 
not to the garments. — At end of v. OrC (A Q V 106 A al.) a plus, 'and 
the king worshipped the Lord before them' ; similarly Lu. 

28. uj n^yi] (5^ a Q (HP inaccurate here) om. conj.; B conj. here 
and with Mstuax- — 1"'J''^'] = Haf. Nr:jnD i<:y7\^ Ezr. 6"; these stems have 
the secondary mng. of 'contradict, disobey,' analogous, as Bert., al., 
remark, to '\^n Is. 24*; also cf. Arab, halafa in stems III, VI, VIII. In 
Syr. p i<yi' = 'disobey,' e.g., Cureton, Anc. Syr. Documents, p. 48, 1. 3. 
Sym. rightly tr. TjOixriaav.— r'l'??^] So the edd.; the Oriental rdg. 
]^r\^:!V> (Gin.). The Kr. is again identical as in v.-'; the pi. Kt., how- 
ever, is here supported by (6^ Q •g^ the sing, by ^s §. Read here as pi. 
Ehr.'s view that 'J is reflexive (he cfl. similar Rabb. use of Di';-) is not 
necessary; he may be right in supposing that the sing. IK^r. implied this 
idea. 05 + sEs e'tATruptcj^Lov, (not Or?) + tie, xup; cf. Ken. 180 NnnrS 
N"*1J U3. Paul has reminiscence of this rdg. at i Cor. 13^, xav •urotpaSd) 
Tb csQt\i.6L jjLou Yva xauOtjao'^at, which latter vb. is thus supported vs. 
xauxT)aw(jLat (WH); marginal apparatus appear to ignore the citation. 
— 29. D>'0 D''i:' ''jc] the phrase also 4' and freq. in Ezr. 4*', etc., in 6" 
'ta '^ imp p; cf. ijd 2^. For ojJta texts 56Y(ji,a, exc. B 89 132 229 xb 

3''-'° 219 

Sdytia. — T?*:] = Syr., Arab, lisdn; cf. Mar., Gr. §82; Nold. in his review 
of Kau., Gr., rightly denies the latter's description of this form (§§12. 57 
end) as 'eine kiinstliche Schiirfung der Consonante.' The prec. conj. is 
ignored by Q.—rh-:: Kt., ''"'v :^r.] VSS 'blasphemy.' Ra., AEz. identify 
with Heb. rts. jjc'. r\xt', used of careless, inadvertent error; so Targ. tr. 
these vbs. by i^^v, e.g., Job 6^*, 12'^, and such is the sense of Kr., = EVV 
'(speak) anything amiss'; Sa., 'an absurdity.' The Kt., if not an error, 
would be a var. form; Kau., §61, 4, b, suggests a pointing after analogy 
of ^\^\ but possibly to be read as ^.."f 'remiss,' occurring in 4^ as 're- 
laxed.' The noun ''^V' appears in the same sense in 6', Ezr. 4^^, 6' (here 
Gin. accents hrv). For the form s. Kau., I.e., i.e., the participial stem 
like galMd; but it is better compared with ^^^, etc., i.e., salU, and then 
with Heb. heightening of the pretonic vowel. And so the Heb. equiva- 
lent ^tl'^. Poss. ''..? Job 20^" should be read ^^*, as a noun is required. 
Hitz., preferring the 5^r., suggested ^^'^ = ^t-F, cf. i Sa. i'^, ^^'?c', Kr. 
ID^'^^V, and eft. for the mng. vXhSnc 4", 'word,' hence here 'thing' {cf. 
use of Heb. "i3i). So Bev., Kamp., Mar.; the latter suggests that >x in 
the unique speUing nuj en suite was intended as emendation to our 
word. A third derivation is offered by Perles, JQR O.S. 18 387, pre- 
ferred by GB, as from Heb. and Syr. nSo, 'despise,' the noun to be 
read as 'abuse, slander' (also suggesting nSd'' for xSai 7-^); but then 
tr is improper. I prefer the traditional interpretation with Behr., Dr., 
Kon., Hwh., al. For the danger of a ^]]Y even in speech s. Ecc. 5^ — 
Nuj] Otherwise always ijj, as many mss here; prob. assimilation to 
N1J3 sup. (& om. prec. conj. — iiiyn'' pDin] For the penalties and VSS 
s. at 2'. — mriB"] The rt. nv.S' here = n^t' 2^; there is no reason, with 
BDB, GB, to postulate two Heb. rts. nia'; cf. Kon., Hwh.~^.\] S. at 
2'.— ^r.?] 'Like this = thus,' so Sa.; so Ezr. 5' = prob. njTD APO 
pap. 10, 1. 8; ef. Heb. n^jD, e.g., i Ki. 7"; erroneously AEz., Hitz., Behr., 
al., 'like this one,' i.e., their God. — 30. uj "i3;'i] (S asyndeton. — C5 
has transposed the words S23 n:nna, Icp' Kkriq ttji; x^pa?, i-e., as though 
'^0 S33. A by reminiscence of 2" -\- ixl xa spyot. All texts add an 
extensive plus at end, most of them with a doublet Tj^cwaev auTou? || 
Tju^TjffEv auTouq; A is in sad confusion. 



The story is cast in the form of an encyclical edict emanating 
from the king, with the salutation c. 3, 31-33 (c. 4, 1-3), and 
the concluding pronouncement, his confession of God, 34 (37). 
The body of the document contains three acts: (i) 1-24 (4-27) 
the problem of the king's mysterious dream and Dan.'s inter- 
pretation of it; (2) 25-30 (28-33) the story of the king's 
mania; (3) 31-34 (34-37) his restoration to prosperity. Defi- 
nite metrical structure is evident for 3^^, 4'^-"^- ''^-^- ^^-'^*, and the 
greater part, if not all, of vv.'^-^^. The whole story is com- 
posed in a lyric strain. Bert, casts all the spoken parts into 
verse form. 

The amazing malady which possessed Nebuchadnezzar, 
known scientifically as lycanthropy, is presented in a simple 
and natural way. There is no idea of his possession by Satan, 
a view advanced by Origen but denied by Jer. (at the begin- 
ning of his comm. on the chap.), no idea of metamorphosis, such 
as has been advanced by some learned if not scientific students 
(s. dEnv., p. 319), following in the footsteps of Jer., who insip- 
idly eft. Scylla and Charybdis, Hydra and the Centaurs. The 
disease is well known in the sad annals of the human mind and 
attested by scientific examination. With it is associated the 
primitive werewolf superstition, which may have its rational- 
istic support in the actual frenzies of the human kind. Refif. for 
this phenomenon from ancient and modern studies have been 
assembled by Pusey, pp. 428^., and in a popular but well-docu- 
mented volume by S. Baring-Gould, The Book of Were-Wolvcs, 
London, 1865, in comparison with whose terrible tales Neb.'s 
madness was a mild case.^ Even if the essence of the story 
were true, that Neb. was so afilicted, after the manner of 
'geniuses' and of many royal persons, as George III of England 
and Otho of Bavaria, corroboration of it can hardly ever be ex- 
pected from archaeology, for royal families do not leave me- 

' See also W. H. Roscher, 'Das von der Kynanthropie handelnde Fragment des 
Marcellus von Side,' in Abhandlungen (phil.-hist. Klasse) of the Saxon Academy, 
vol. 17, 1896. Zock., p. 30, gives an extensive bibliography. Lammcns, La Syrie, 
149, notes that Ibn Batrik records a similar madness of the crazy Hakim (ii, 218). 
Wilson, p. 289, registers a monograph by D. R. Burrell, 'The Insane Kings of the 
Bible,' Am. Journ. of Insanity, April, 1894, 493-504. 


morials of such frailties. The alleged malady is not an impos- 

A partly parallel saga of Neb., observed by Grot., has been 
preserved by Eusebius, Praep. ev., ix, 41, 6, and in shorter form, 
in his Chronicle (only preserved in Armenian) ; s. ed. Schoene, 
I, 42 (the former text also in Miiller, Frag. hist, gr., 4, 282). 
Eusebius says: "I found also in the book of Abydenus on the 
Assyrians the following in regard to Neb.: Megasthenes says 
that Neb. became stronger than Herakles, and made wars upon 
Lybia and Iberia, and having conquered these countries settled 
a part of their inhabitants on the right of Pontus. After this, it 
is said by the Chaldaeans, he ascended the roof of his palace, and, 
being possessed by some god or other, cried aloud: 'O Babylo- 
nians, I, Neb., announce to you beforehand the coming misfor- 
tune, which Bel my ancestor and the Queen Beltis are alike 
powerless to persuade the Fates to avert. A Persian mule will 
come, having your own deities as his allies, and will bring slav- 
ery. He who will help him in this undertaking will be the son 
of Medes [or, by correction, of a Median woman, with ref. to 
Nabonidus and his Median mother, with Gutschmid and 
Schrader], the boast of Assyria. Would that before my citizens 
were betrayed, some Charybdis or sea might receive him, and 
utterly extinguish him; or else that betaking himself elsewhere, 
he might be driven through the desert, where is no city nor track 
of man, where wild beasts have their pasture, and birds do 
roam, and that among rocks and ravines he might wander alone; 
and that I, before he imagined this, might meet with some hap- 
pier end ! ' Having uttered this prophecy, he forthwith disap- 
peared." For criticism of these passages and their relation to 
Dan. 4 s. Schrader's notable essay, 'Die Sage vom Wahnsinn 
Nebukadnezar's,' in Jahrbiicher fiir prot. Theologie, 1884, 618- 
629. He would assign only the first part of the statement to 
Megasthenes, c. 300, and the story of the oracle to Abydenus, 
who prob. lived in the 2d cent. B.C. He notes the several strik- 
ing reminiscences of veritable history in the anecdote and eft. 
with it unfavorably the story in Dan., which certainly lacks any 
definite historical traces apart from the general coloring, which 
would better suit a later age than that of Neb. Two plausible 
similarities between the Greek and the Aramaic story have been 
observed and variously appreciated by students. One is the 


oracle received on the roof of the palace, the other the wild 
animal-like existence to which Neb. would condemn the traitor 
to his land. The apologists for Dan. have made the most of 
these likenesses, e.g., Heng., Pusey, dEnv.; they hold that 
Abydenus' version is the younger, a perversion of that in Dan. 
For the latest lines of defence the pertinent cc. in Wright, Wil- 
son, Boutflower, should be consulted. Others who deny the 
truth of the story, recognize these features as of a common origin 
of tradition, e.g., Bert, and Schrader (p. 628); and so Bev., Dr. 
Others deny in toto any relation, so vLeng., and most recently 
Torrey, Notes, I, 266. The latter points out that the similarities 
are in mere commonplaces, and that the wild life desired for the 
traitor has nothing to do with the king's affliction. This judg- 
ment is the simplest. Neb. left but a faint tradition behind him; 
Her. knows him only under the name Labynetos I, as father 
of Labynetos II, i.e., Nabonidus, and Jos., A J x, 11, i, after 
summing up a few items of information concerning him, con- 
cludes: "These are all the histories I have met with concerning 
this king." ^ 

More immediate objects of historical criticism are found in 
the edict form of the alleged encyclical of Neb. and in its sub- 
stantial contents of confession by the heathen king of the God 
of Daniel. As an edict the document is historically absurd; it 
has no similar in the history of royal conversions nor in ancient 
imperial edicts. Comparison with the Persian imperial recogni- 
tion of the God in Jerusalem as ' the God of heaven ' in Cyrus' 
edict, Ezr. i, and the papyrus rescript of Arsames to the Jews 
at Assouan offers no parallel. Not only is there no trace of the 
chancellery style of such documents, but the narrative passes 
fluidly from the first to the third person and back to the first. 
Calv.'s remark: "haec autem personarum uarietas sensum non 

' There appears to have been a later midrashic expansion of the legend among 
the Jews, first hinted at in (& v.^' and then specified in Aphrem Syrus at v.'<: "This 
refers either to Evilmerodach or to Neb.'s wife, who in his absence for those seven 
years administered the government." This speculation is found in an expanded 
form in Rashi (cited here by Galle), who, at Jer. 52" and Is. 14", tells how Evil- 
merodach took his father's place in his illness, was thrown into prison upon the 
latter's restoration, and upon his death refused the crown for fear Neb. might re- 
turn, but he allayed his fears by casting Neb.'s body out of its tomb. In (&'s form 
of the story (s. at end of this chap.) we also have early midrash about Neb.'s suc- 
cessor. The treatment of tradition by S. Bernstein, K. Nebucadnezar von Babel in 
der jiid. Tradition, 1907, 72 pp., I have not seen. 


reddit ambiguum aut obscurum," indicates that he recognized 
a difficulty but could not relieve it. Some would hold that the 
section vv.^^-^^ was interpolated by Dan., so e.g., Calv., Hav., 
dEnv. (the latter glosses, p. 367: "Dan. ajouta — pour ses lec- 
teurs"). Others, Kran., Zock., boldly recognizing the incon- 
gruity of the document as a first-hand royal edict, because of its 
theological character, etc., hold that Dan. was the writer, who 
composed the declaration by order of the king soon after the 
conclusion of the events. We have still to inquire into the lit- 
erary phenomenon of the change of person in this story, a change 
which sets in, from the ist pers. to the 3d, in v.^^ '■^^\ the ist 
pers. being resumed in v.^^ '■^■^K Ace. to most modern comm. 
the change is 'a lapse,' or, with Mar., 'the author forgot him- 
self.' Cha. boldly asserts that this irrational change is an argu- 
ment for the superiority of ^, which assigns a larger portion to 
the 3d person. But it has not been observed by the comm. that 
the same phenomenon appears in the book of Tobit, which 
begins with the ego of the hero and passes over into the 3d pers. 
at 3^ Here H and the secondary Aramaic version (Neubauer's 
text) have the 3d pers. throughout, but it is well-nigh univer- 
sally admitted . that the Gr. Tobit is the original form. The 
change of person in both stories is due to an unconscious dra- 
matic sense. In Tobit the hero speaks in the first act, but when 
the drama passes to other scenes and characters, the ordinary 
narrative style of the 3d pers. is adopted. And so in our story, 
in which the alleged edict form sat lightly on the composer's 
mind, dramatically the account of the king's madness is told 
in the 3d pers., for of that he would not have been a sane wit- 
ness; the change of person is anticipated somewhat too early in 
v.i^. The dramatic propriety involved appears from the fact 
that probably most readers do not stumble over the incongruity. 
To the same sense of the dramatic belongs also the shifting from 
Heb. to Aram, in c. 2. 

The text of (S which rarely runs with ^, will be treated in an 
appendix at the end of the chap. By the fatality of the Mediaeval 
Christian division of chapters, generally attributed to Arch- 
bishop Langton of the 13th cent., the first three vv. of this story 
were attached to c. 3. This arrangement of U was followed by 
the printed editions of M and also by GV, fortunately not by 
EVV, except JV, which follows Jewish usage. (See in general 


G. F. Moore, 'The Vulgate Chapters and Numbered Verses in 
the Hebrew Bible,' JBL 12, 73-78.) The ancient tradition was 
correct in its division, e.g., the pericope titles of the uncials A 
and Q; the chapter division in 147, the Syro-Hexapla, and the 
Chigi MS, in Hipp., Jer., ^ A; so Jeph. ('fourth chapter'), and 
apparently AEz. Also in m a Closed (greater) Paragraph begins 
at 4^^ of the Heb. edd., while Gin. allows no break between cc. 
3. 4 {vs. Bar, who indicates a Closed (lesser) Paragraph at that 
point). Further, the ancient Seder, or Lection division started 
at v.^". See further §3. 

C. 3, 31-33 (C. 4, 1-3). The encyclical epistle is introduced 
with a salutation in which Neb. declares how it is my pleasure 
to declare the signs and wonders that God Most High has wrought 
for me (31. 32), concluding with a metrical psean of praise: 

33. How great are His signs : and how mighty His wonders ; 
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom : atid His dominion 
with age and age along. 

For Neb.'s confession of God Most High cf. Comm. at 3^*, and 
V. inf. 

31. 6mss Ken., 2MSS de R. + rhv [njSd '2j], 3MSS + 2.-13 = &. The 
plus is borrowed from 6". — 'Ji s-'DOJ? ?3-'] Cf. 3*. Or^ Lu. h"' om. 
conj. in n^ju'Si. — nj'^> jidd*?;:'] efpTjvTj uyitv -KkriQuvOdfi; another tr. 
of the same formula in Tob. 1'° Cod. Sin., x^fpe'v "O' -KoWa., 
cf. the greeting xXsIaxa x^^P^'v in papp. of ist cent. B.C. (noted in 
Charles, Apoc, at Tob. I.e.). In the Elephantine papp. the formula is, 
e.g., 'the God of heaven ask much after the health of X.' For the par- 
allels in Ezr. 5' and 7'- s. the writer's note on kulla in JAOS 43, 391 ff. — 
32. Ninsni n\-in] Cf. Dvnflini nnx Dt. 4'S etc., qt^^zIol %. -zipaxoi, a 
freq. phrase in Gr. Bible, s. Thayer, Lex., s.v. a-q'^slov for reff. — ay i^';] 
As Torrey has observed, Composition and Date of Acts, 38, this idiom 
occurs in his Cilician Aram, inscription {JAOS 35, 370), in Syr., and 
also is represented in the Gr. of Acts 14"", 15*; ^^ is similarly used in 
Heb., e.g., Dt. 1^°. — mp lor] = 4=*, 6=; the phrase in Acts 6^; for the 
prep. s. 2^- *. — 33. ^r?) The same adv. in Syr., e.g., Pesh. Mt. 7"; cf. 
similar ^^? in Heb.— om. for brevity 'his signs,' 'his wonders.' — IV; V"] 
See on P'?^ 3-. — iii -n d>'] = 4'', cf. niSiS ay 7'; similar use in Heb., 
tt'DS' oy Ps. 72^ with which comm. eft. Ovid, Amor, i, 15/., "cum sole 
et luna semper Aratus erit"; cf. our 'with the morning,' etc. 

1-6 (4-9). Neb., frightened by a dream, summons his wise 
men for the interpretation, but only Dan. is found competent. 

4'-' ^'-'^ 22 S 

For the theme of royal dreams s. Int. to c. 2. Neb. introduces 
his tale with a brief idyllic phrase picturing his happiness when 
the tragic event occurred. (A similar element of pathos appears 
in the epitaph of Eshmunazar of Sidon, CIS i, 3; Lidz., NE 417, 
Cooke, NSI no. 5.) He was enjoying life unconcerned {relaxed, 
careless) and flourishing in the splendors of his Babylonian pal- 
ace — like another Rich Man in another story (v.^). His quiet is 
disturbed by an ominous dream which frightened him (v.^). 
The two parts of the v. are, like v.\ in poetical parallelism, and, 
as on reasonable grounds (s. Notes), the words and visions of 
my head are to be regarded as an addition, the v. reads with 
this omission as a true double trimeter, with the hemistichs 
rhyming. All the classes of the wise men are summoned to in- 
terpret the dream, but they were found incompetent (vv.'- ■* 
<6- 7))^ until at last Dan. came in (v.^*^*"')- The king recognizes 
him, with pardonable pride recalls his court name Belteshazzar , 
named after my god, i.e., Bel (ace. to the etymology assumed), and 
welcomes him as one possessed by the spirit of holy Deity (v.^). 
The story is deftly told. The seer was Daniel to the Jewish 
readers, but Belteshazzar to the court. And while the story 
connects with the sequel of c. 2 in stating Dan.'s pre-eminence 
among the wise men, actually giving him the title of Master of 
the Magicians (v.^^^'), it proudly makes him enter alone and 
last of all, as though of a different class from the other wise men. 
In historical verisimilitude the king should have consulted the 
chief of the wise men first, particularly if he recalled Dan.'s 
extraordinary faculty in interpreting to him the earlier dream 
(and so (^ transforms the story, s. Note at end of chap.). But 
a higher dramatic end is gained by having Dan. enter trium- 
phantly at last, when his colleagues again have been nonplussed. 
In V.5'' (*''>, repeated in v.^% Neb. speaks of Dan. as one in 
•whom is holy Deity's spirit. The last noun is unarticulated (in 
the abs. state), and is exactly comparable with, and a literal 
reminiscence of. Gen. 41^^ where the heathen Pharaoh calls Jo- 
seph 'a man in whom there is a spirit of Deity,' or rather 'a 
divine spirit.' Here, as in Gen., the pi. for God, pri/K, is not, 
against Behr., a polytheistic expression, i.e., 'gods,' and it is, 
against Behr., Cha., the Aram, equivalent of Jiiwii's epithet in 

Jos. 2419, D'^w^np D\n^X. ©'s 0€ov is right as against the pi. of 

H (Jer. takes pains to contradict ©), and against comm. and 


modern VSS in general, e.g., Grot., "loquitur ut idolalatra," 
cited approvingly by Mar. But Ra., CBMich., Ehr. correctly 
understand it as of singular mng. See further Notes on j%"'?i< 
2", 3". In addition to the material in the Babylonian field for 
the use of ilii, pi. Hani, as generic terms, we may compare the 
Egyptian distinction between the universal idea of ' God,' neter, 
e.g., in comparison with 'the god of my city,' in the Book of 
the Dead, chap, cxxv; s. Budge, Tutankhamen, etc., 1923, p. 
148, with the accompanying discussion. In v.^^^^ vast trouble 
has been given by the statement that the king bids Dan.: the 
visions of my dream which I have seen and the interpretation 
thereof tell, yet at once proceeds to tell the dream himself. But 
the trouble is removed by the suggestion in the Note to read 
••ITn ('visions-of ') as ''Tn 'lo,' i.e., 'Here is the dream, interpret 

1 (4). ^I'.'f] See on rhz' 3-'; it is the equivalent of Heb. '*:.^', which in 
Jer. 49'' is 'care-free,' then 'at rest,' with EVV et al. For the moral 
implication cf. oSiy ■>iSt;', Ps. 73^^ — "'•'?;??] So Bar, Str. and Kau., §55, 
3; ^'T''i??, Mich., Gin., Kit., preferred by Mar., §76, c. But the former is 
approved by the similar forms in 2", 3-', 6", and the emph. 5'-, Ezr. 
S'- ^-, in all which Gin. so reads without question. For the resp. statistics 
of ai and e s. Powell, Supp. Hebr., p. 53. Bar's rdg. is doubtless the 
elder form. There are two cases in APO where with suffix -.13 is written 
(s. Index), also in a pap. in AP, no. 81, 1. 115. All other cases in papp, 
have -no. — pyi] The green tree is figure of prosperity, for the 
righteous Ps. 92" 5-, for the wicked Ps. 37'^ — ^So^n] (g by paraphrase 
£xIt. ep6vou [xou; texts om.; Or^- c- insert (S's rdg. (Jer. regards the rdg. 
as of 0), followed by Lu., who adds the doublet v.. icfwv ev t«J) Xay [xou, 
where Xaw is patent error for vaw = V3>n. Lu.'s rdg. may belong to 
orig. 0, having dropped out by haplog., with evuxvtov. — 2 (5). "'Ji.nTl] 
On the impf. following the pf. cf. Kau., §73, 4, Mar., Gr. §101. Kau. 
remarks: "Die Ablosung des Perfects durch das Imperf. mit i ent- 
spricht hier ganz der Ablosung des hebr. Perfects durch Impf. consecu- 
tivum und es ist nicht unwahrscheinlich, dass hier die Gewohnung an 
die hebr. consecutio temporum einen Einfluss ausgeiibt hat." The first 
part of this statement is correct, the second is not proved. The alterna- 
tion of pf. and impf. is one of the picturesque elements in the diction 
of the dialect. — PI'^T] The word is used of dream fantasies, esp. of 
impure dreams; s. Heb. and Talm. Lexx. It is used in Mand. for 
'Tauschung, Blendwerk,' Nold., MG p. 64, n. 2, in Syr. of the Fata 
Morgana, Brock., Lex. s.v.\ in Rabb. along with vb. nmn, of concep- 

4^-'^ ^'-'^ 227 

tions of the mind, and then in particular of impure dreams. Also a 
magical inscription in my Aram. Incanl. Texts (s. p. Sz) lists the x>ii<nn 
with incubi and 'visions.' Cf. the denotation of Arab, halama, and this 
particular rung, in Syr. 'eihelajnlam. Buxt., Jast. derive from Heb. n-\n 
'conceive,' and so Behr., who cfl. the Bibl. use for conceiving evil ideas, 
e.g., Ps. 7^^ But Arab, harhara, 'disturb,' with its derivatives, suggests 
an independent rt.; cf. Arab, harra, 'abhor.' I welcome therefore an 
oral suggestion from Prof. M. L. Margolis that we connect with our rt. 
here, har = harhar, the V'^''?. of Gen. 3'*, universally but with difficulty 
derived as from ^"^^ and interpreted as mng. 'pregnancy'; but the form 
requires our rt. i"\n and so means, as Margolis suggests, 'pruriency,' i.e., 
the se.xual metaphysical condition. On account of the unpleasant de- 
notation of the word AEz. takes care to specify, iS n;'n |\si D^n imn 
'a mental Aar/zor without excretion.' Prob. for the same reason & om. 
the phrase. And actually ^i:'nt ''irm of ^ may be an exegetical addi- 
tion, inserted, as similarly in v.', from v.'° and 2"', to avoid that dis- 
agreeable denotation; it disturbs the metrical balance of the v. and 
there is no trace of it in (5. auvexcipa^av, i.e., as a vb. nnin, which 
as Bert, recognized = Arab, harra. 

3 (6). nS-j.-i] = rh';r^, f, s. on ^>-:n, 2".— 4 (7). r^h-; Kt., v'ly ^r.] 
= 5^ i.e., the l^^r. as in Syr.; for the Kt. cf. Dalm., Gr. §71, and Nold., 
SG §21, d. — 5 (8). jnnN Kt., also mss jinn] Mich., Kit. for I^r. P.C1?, 
Bar P,"?:?; Gin. notes both 5^res. Str. cites mss with Bab. punctuation 
'uhrdn and ^aharon. The equivalent phrase to the present |nnt< ij: ap- 
pears in the Aljikar papp., APO pap. 52, col. i, 1. 5, iJ"ot^ pnx S>', col. 
2, 1. I, ]-\T\H ^y ■>? ny, also (?) pap. 56, 1. 8 (= ^P A^iikar, 11. 53. 64. 133). 
Hav., approved by vLeng., first determined the true character of the 
form., namely as pL, Vy^^, and so as abstract, i.e., 'at last.' He has 
been followed afresh by Torrey, Notes, I, 267; and by W. R. Arnold, 
JBL 31, 23, upon the basis of the papp. Similar pis. are, e.g., Heb. 
i-inx {e.g., 2 Sa. 2^'), and some rare Syr. adverbs cited by Nold., SG §155, 
A. But it is not necessary with Arnold to replace i>' with Sy; per con. 
s. Torrey's elucidation of this use of 1", which is corroborated by ew.; 
and & 'adafmnd. Discussions of various attempts at the phrase are given 
at length by Kamp. The ^^^r. V^P^ = Syr. 'another' appears as plus 
in OrP [ew<; ou] exspoc; = Lu.; this was followed by 13 donee collega 
(rdg. sTalpoi; for ?Tepo<;!). The tr. is prob. Aquila's, not of 'the 
Three,' as Jer. states. And so AEz., jnnx; but correctly Ra., iy 
H1^r\ njinx -wv., followed by GV EVV. — nxNS'oSa ncc n] See at i^ — 
]ic"i-\p pn-'x] Polytheistic is the articulated Phoen. phrase in the Esh- 
munazar Inscr. {CIS i, no. 3 = Lidz., NE p. 417, Cooke, NSI no. 5), 
11. 9. 22. D'i'npn DjSKcri), 'the holy gods.' 0here and in the other cases 
of 'i|"> 'Sn nn (vv.*- '*) tr. xv£G;j.a OeoO Sytov; the same construction 
in s" in CI Or^-c Lu. (0 ignoring '•^?). In v.« Or? has ayfou. 


6 (9). I? ... 13 ... n] = 'in whom ... for whom,' so rightly 
© and GV ('welchen ich weiss'), but K tr. n by quoniam, and so EVV 
'because.' — d:n] In O.T. only here and Est. i^ Djn |in, 'none compel- 
ling'; here 'disturbing, incommoding,' EVV 'troubleth.' The vb. is 
used in Rabb. of 'forcing, outraging' (so Syr.), and also 'taking by 
force, confiscating,' and with it is to be connected Djn (= Haf. ?) in 
the Nerab Inscrr. (Lidz., NE, p. 445, Cooke, NSI nos. 64. 65) and the 
ZKR Inscr., col. 2, 1. 20. — ''?.!?] S* as sing., U pi. This sentence in 
?^, = B, makes Neb. ask Dan. to tell him the dream as well as the 
interpretation (r/. c. 2), while ace. to vv.^- ' Neb. narrated the dream 
to him. © relieved the obvious difficulty by the plus d'xouaov [x. opotJtv] 
i.e., as i'?F, which is accepted by Mar. in his text and by Torrey, Notes, 
1, p. 267. & helped itself out by a forced paraphrase, 'in the visions of 
my dream I was seeing a vision of my head, and do thou its interpre- 
tation tell.' Giesebrecht, GGA, 1895, p. 598 (s. Kamp.'s exposition), 
has suggested reading ^:.n^^ 'I will tell' Ehr. would read ^-^ ^^'^ ^"^ ^°^n 
'the dream which I saw I will tell,' and then takes 'and the visions 
of my head on my bed,' v.'', as second object. But the simplest emenda- 
tion is to read 'IT! 'behold !' This use of vn appears in the papp. APO 
pap. I, 1. 23, pap. 54, 1. 7 (s. Cowley AP index), the ostrakon in APA 
no. M, col. 1, 1. 4, col. 2, 11. I. 3 (Lidz., Eph., 2, 236 Jf.). This was early 
confused with the word for 'vision,' and © felt bound, exceptionally, 
to insert 'hear.' The reference of the suffix in '"^l-fl is then unimpeach- 

7-15 (10-18). The king proceeds to relate his dream. He saw 
a great and growing tree which appeared to reach the sky and 
to extend to the horizon. The dream is paralleled by that of 
the Median Astyages, who dreamed of a vine growing out of the 
womb of his daughter Mandane, which came to ' extend over all 
Asia,' the vine being the future Cyrus (Her., i, 108); and by 
that of Xerxes, who in preparing for his expedition against 
Greece saw himself crowned with a shoot of olive, whose branches 
extended over every land, but afterward the crown about his 
head disappeared {ib., vii, 19). A similar dream is told of the 
caliph Othman I (c. 1270); s. Hav., who cites d'Ohsson, Allgem. 
Schilderung des ottom. Reiches, 273 ff. But our story-teller is also 
following good native literary tradition. There is Ezekiel's fig- 
ure of Israel as a cedar of Lebanon which was cropped by an 
eagle and planted 'in a city of merchants,' where it grew and 
became a spreading vine, Eze. 17' *^- ; while the figure is taken up 
again in vv.^^^-, when the Lord takes a shoot from the top of 

47-9 (10-12) 229 

the cedar and plants it in the mountains of Israel, where 'it 
shall bring forth boughs (Cj^y) and make fruit . . . and shall 

dwell under it all fowl of every wing {h2 mS!f ^3 ITinn '\:y^^ 
M^), in the shadow (^^*) of its branches dwelling.' Still more 
articulated is the same prophet's symbol of Assyria (the pre- 
cursor of Egypt) as a cedar in Lebanon, c. 31: 'Its stature be- 
came great (nn33), • • • and its boughs were multiplied, and 
its branches became long. ... In its boughs nested i^2}p) all 
the fowl of heaven (D''!:2w'n Cjiy), and under its branches brought 
forth their young all the wild beasts (mwll HTl), and in its shadow 
dwelt all (?) great nations' (vv.^- '^). In the judgment upon this 
cedar we see 'its branches fallen upon the mountains and val- 
leys,' etc., with the beasts and birds feasting on 'the carcass' 
(vv.i2- ^^). But our narrator, while reminiscent of the classic 
figures, is inventive and independent. With him the Tree, sym- 
bolic of the Empire of Man, is to be cut down, but not destroyed, 
that all may know that God is Potentate in that Empire of 
Man. The Jew here speaks with the universalism of the Second 
Isaiah; he seeks not his own, nor does he despise humanity, but 
his sure faith is that God must rule. It may be noted that the 
trope of the tree for national life is abundant in the O.T.; e.g., 
the contrast between the cedars of Lebanon which are to be 
cut down and 'the shoot that shall come forth of the stock of 
Jesse,' Is. lo^^-ii^; and compare the borrowed tropes of the 
vine and the cedar in 2 Baruch, representing Israel and the 
Roman empire. 

Bert, appears to have been the first to display the poetic 
structure of the passage, v.^'^-^^ (lob-n)^ ^jj-j^ ^j^g exception of the 
prose interlude in v.^°(i^'% and his example has been followed 
by Ew., Lohr, Mar., Cha., JV. But there is not sufl&cient 
reason, with Mar. followed by Cha., to compress vv.'^^-'^^"''"^^^ 
to two stanzas of two stichoi apiece by omitting ' and the height 
thereof was great,' and 'in it was food for all.' Omitting the 
introductory 'the visions of my head,' which is either simply a 
title or a gloss (s. the Notes), these w. may be translated: 

lb. Upon my bed I was seeing — 
And lo a tree 

In the midst of the earth, 
And its height was great. 


8. The tree grew and waxed strong, 

And its height reached unto heaven 

And the view of it to the whole earth's end; 

9. The leafage of it fair 

And its fruit much, 

And food in it for all; 
Under it the wild life taking shade, 

And in its branches lodging the birds of the sky, 

And from it feeding all flesh. 

In this arrangement the usual double trimeter is divided at 
the beginning of each stanza into three dimeter feet, a frequent 
phenomenon in Heb. poetry. But for the angel's utterance, 
yy_iib-ii(i4b-i7)^ not more can be said than that the lines are 
cast in poetic mould; there is no metrical evenness, it is vers 
libre ! 

7 (10). ''JD-i'D S; irN-1 >itni] The clause is punctuated with athnah, 
and must have been regarded as title to the following. Orig. (& (which 
also ignores •'a^ra S;) © B ora. •'K'KT ■'irni, which is supplied unsyntac- 
tically by Or? with -f) Spaatc; (V al. al bpScoBiq, so also Q subter lin.), 
and by Lu., grammatically construing in ace. pi. with v.'. B = M, 
iiisio capitis mei in cuhili meo. The evidence of the first three VSS 
authorizes us to exclude the unnecessary clause, which would then be 
similar to the identical gloss in v.- and a reminiscence of 2^', cf. 7*. The 
comm. either attach it to the prec. v., e.g., Bert., Lohr, Ehr., or pre- 
dominantly regard it as an absolute clause. (Too freely EVV, 'these 
were the visions,' etc.). So vLeng., most recent comm., Torrey ('a sort 
of paragraph heading,' Notes, I, 268). — hmh nin] Cf. 2". — ncn] But 
® -fj o?aa«; auxou, i.e., as '"^H, which may be preferable, avoiding the 
repeated r^i:i'\-\. S. Field on the strange tr. of (SS; I think the Syr. trans- 
lator found 6paat<; for opacris, took it for OpotOatt;, and hence his ren- 
dering.— 8 (11). IP-'^i ^^'^■'< ^r] It is debatable whether the vbs. indi- 
cate process or state; for the former interpretation CBMich., Ilitz., 
Klief., Bev., Pr., and Keil suggestively: "ihnen (the perfects) entspricht 
im zweiten Hemistich das Impf. n'JD'', als die Form des anstrebenden 
Antriebs." This view is doubtless corroborated by the repetition of the 
vbs. in v.i' and adds liveliness to the scene. So EVV. The other inter- 
pretation is accepted by, e.g., vLeng., Behr., Dr., Cha., 'was grown.' — 
'^^!^'Q] Also v.'^; here (S -rb xuto? auxoO {i.e., 'its circumference,' 
y.uTo? is used of a concave body), and so 6 v.", where <& Zgiy-ci^; in v.^' 

.10-13 (13-16) 231 

d xuTOs, where correctly xupi'a. There is no reason to amend the 
word; 'its appearance,' i.e., as far as eye could see, it reached the hori- 
zon. So S* 13 EVV and, e.g., Bev., Mein., Torrey. The form {cf. Kau., 
§55 end, §6i, 4) is identical with Syr. mehotd, selotd, or, better, it may 
have been = Heb. ^■''C, e.g., 8^, so Bev. Haupt's revision of the lines 
(in Kamp.), exchanging nnirn and nisy, v.', has against it the repeti- 
tion in v.'^ Kamp. gives an extended discussion of the word. — 9 (12). 
":.?>;] The same word in Heb., Ps. 104'=.— '^?^^•] With BDB GB rt. 22h; 
with nasal insertion s. on ^^';ir\, v.'. But Del., Prolegomena, 114, Mein., 
Pr., Kon., H-wb., refer to the Akk. rt., andhii, 'spring up.' — P'?] Rt. Jir, 
cf. prn'' inf. Nold., MG 130, n. 4, regards md- as 'a very ancient form 
of the prefix,' vs. Kau., p. 112, who considers d a pretonic heightening. 
Ace. to Powell, Supp. Hehr., 40, "'D and its like are rather Heb. loan- 
words in Aram., and the Heb. -r is retained as stationary." — nn-xSDJ 
So Bar, s. his note; Gin. om. dagesh; the same variation in v.^*. For 
nSd s. at 2". Bert, rightly notes that & (also B) distinctly gives the 
true interpretation, 'food for all was in it,' with EVV vs. M and some 
comm. — im.nn.n] (^ © pref. xai, exc. 49 90 91 106 232 h'-°. — SSa.-i] = 
'take shade'; for such operative ('innerlich transitiv') causatives cf. 
Kau., §33, I, GK §53, d, seq. The strong form of j?"y is found only 
here and in the Peal perf. rVSy and ppl. r^Sy. — ni3 nrn] For form of 
'n s. Kau., §55, p. 100. The phrase = Heb. rnu'n n^n. — jmi Kt., ^y^\ 
^r.] Heb. niDX and Syr. sepperd are predominantly fem. (s. Lexx.), cf. 
inf., V.'', where nas is construed with fem. vb. But in view of the in- 
consequence in gender agreement in early Aram. (cf. Sachau, APO 
273), the Kt. may be retained with Kamp. vs. Kau., p. 165, n. 3. — nss] 
S. on n-iN 2^^ As against Kau., §59, c. Brock., VG i, §148, postulating 
orig. kittal or kuttitl, the orig. form is supur, cf. similar words in Barth, 
Nb., §110. The hatef vowel here is reminiscent of orig. u. — inni] See 
on pnarii 2^. 

10 (13). The second act of the dream drama is ushered in by 
the vision of a Vigilant and Holy One descending from heaven 
calling with a loud voice. We have here the earUest mention of 
the Wakeful Ones, generally known in our translations as the 
Watchers, who play so important a role in Enoch, Jubilees, the 
XII Testaments, etc. {cf. the short note of Bousset, Rel. d. Jud., 
371). They appear also in Zad. Frag., p. 2, 1. 18, CiSw'h '•T'J? 1^2i 
(with correction of actual '•"['•j;). The word "i''y is Aramaic in 

form, although it has its Heb. counterpart, and is doubtless an 
importation from the current syncretistic religion. Hence prob- 
ably the addition of the epexegetical 'and holy,' to secure the 


identification with the angelic category. The same combination 
appears in Enoch: 20^ 'the holy angels who watch,' i.e., the 
archangels; and 12^ 'his (Enoch's) activities had to do with the 
Vigilants and his days with the Holy Ones,' the parallelism as 
below, v.i^ While the Vigilants become predominantly fallen 
angels, the original implication of the term as of beings nearest 
to God is preserved in these references. The root of the idea is 
not un-Biblical. Mein. eft. the eyes of the Cherubs in Eze. i 
and 'the seven, which are the eyes of the Lord, which run to 
and fro through the whole earth,' Zech. 4^°. Still closer is Is. 62^ 
with its summons to CnDt^'n, ' the Watchers,' and ns D''"l'';DTDn 
mn'' ' the Remembrancers of the Lord,' ' to give him no rest' (s. 
Duhm), suggesting a heavenly caste parallel to our Vigilants. 
There may indeed be an implied contrast to this notion in Ps. 
121, ace. to which 'He that keepeth Israel neither slumbers nor 
sleeps.' Identification with the many-eyed Amesha Spentas has 
naturally been attempted, e.g., by Bert. Others, e.g., Heng. 
(p. 161), Hiiv., Keil, would relate these beings to the Oeol 
^ovXaiot of Diodorus Sic, ii, 30, planetary deities who keep 
watch over the affairs of the universe; and Hav. eft. the celestial 
ip/xr]P€c<;, 0y\a/ce9, eTrCaKoiroi^ of the later astral theology. An- 
other interesting line of development of the word is that which 
makes the y^"^ a guardian spirit; in Philo it appears to be some- 
thing like the Egyptian Ka, while in both the Mandaic and the 
Christian Syriac literature the Vigilants are guardian angels (s. 
PSmith, S.V.). Note also the corresponding rdkib or 'watcher' 
in the Koran, 50'^, who records the dying man's words. For 
adequate studies of the word we have still to go back to the 
comm. mentioned above and to the classical treatise on the sub- 
ject in the original (anonymous) editio prima of the Chigi text, 
prefaced to the text of ©. A fairly modern interpretation, dat- 
ing from I'Empereur, and accepted by dEnv., p. 388, is that 
which would identify the Watcher with the Angel of Yhwh, 
the Son of Man, the Messiah, and so with the Second Person of 
the Trinity. The question also arises whether Neb. is speaking 
in terms of revelation or ace. to his own Pagan notions. The 
former is the view of Klief., who argues from the repetition of 
'the Vigilant and Holy,' in Dan.'s words, v.^". But it is much 
more plausible to assume, with Heng., Keil, that Neb.'s descrip- 
tion is consciously given a Pagan coloring; Dan. indeed quotes 

.10-13 (13-16) 2^^ 

the king's terms for the angelic being as a cue, but for him it 
is, deliberately, 'the decree of the Highest,' v."^^, not of the Vigi- 
lants as in v.i*. The latter v. is an accurate expression of the 
later astral determinism. 

11 (14). And thus the Vigilant made loud proclamation: Cut 
down the tree : and break off its branches. Strip off its foliage : and 
scatter its fruit. The beasts wander away from beneath it : and the 
fowl from its branches. The pi. impvs. have for their subjects 
the celestial executors of the decree, cf. Is. 40^ But v.^^ '•^^'>, the 
tree is not to be destroyed; its stump with its roots is to be left 
in the earth, clamped with a bond of iron and brass. The signifi- 
cance of this metal clamp has given rise to many interpretations, 
the most common one of which since Jer. is that all madmen 
are bound, and so, e.g., Heng., Klief., Knab. VLeng. proposed 
the rationalistic idea that the bond was to keep the tree from 
splitting, which would be satisfactory if there were evidence 
that such a practice was followed in ancient arboriculture. Pr. 
thinks that it figures in general Neb.'s confinement. Others find 
in it an allegorical mng., e.g., Rosen., Hitz., Keil, Bev. It is best 
to follow Ra., with Mar., Cha., Torrey, to the effect of the sym- 
bolism that Neb. should not be removed, with which cf. w.^^. 
The text further reads that he should be left in a bond of iron 
and brass in the grass of the field, which might then mean, exposed 
to the elements, in parallelism with the following clause, let him 
be wet with the dew of heaven. But as we have then two moments 
in the one sentence, Torrey's excellent suggestion is accepted that 
we supply a vb., let them feed him [with the grass of the field] 
(s. Notes), which gives the necessary item of his eating grass 
like oxen, v.^^ This entails the omission of the last two words 
of the v., in the grass of the earth, which were subsequently in- 
troduced to supply the defective moment. The v. then would 
end with, and with the beasts shall be his lot. With this item there 
is a change from the metaphor of the tree to the actuality figured; 
we may compare, with Knab., the similar transition in Eze. 31*^, 
Mt. 22", Lu. 12^^; cf. also the dramatic development of the par- 
able of the vineyard, Is. 5' ^^ The uncovered reality is continued 
in v.'^ ^"^' : his intelligence is to be dehumanized, made like that 
of a beast; the distinctive glory of man is to be taken away 
from him. And seven times shall pass over (or by) him. The most 
ancient and common interpretation {e.g., that of (^ Jos., Jer. (at 


v.^*), Ra., AEz., Jeph., and most moderns) is that seven years 
is meant; Behr. eft. the corresponding Heb. word for 'time' 
used as year in nTl nys, Gen. i8^°; and such appears to be the 
use of the word in the last part of Dan. (s. at y^'^). However, 
other calculations have been propounded. Hipp, tells of a view 
which identified a 'time' with one of the four seasons. Aph. 
Syr., Chrys., Theodt. think of a time as one of the two seasons, 
summer and winter, i.e., after Persian reckoning. See for a long 
discussion dEnv., pp. 336-341, also vLeng., and for a good ab- 
stract Knab. It is vain to expect to know what was meant. 
There may have been a tradition of a seven years' madness in 
Neb.'s case. Or the figure 'seven' is conventional, even as nine 
years was the term for the were- wolf in Greek folk-lore; s. W. W. 
Hyde, Greek Religion and Its Survivals, 186^. For the use of 
the number in Bab., Jewish and Pers. lore, s. Scheftelowitz, Die 
altpers. Religion u. d. Jtidentum, 134. 

10 (13). v;.N-, ^^r^,3] Grr. vary.— ti'^IPJ, ^^''^ = v.=». An elder identi- 
fication (s. Pole, Synopsis) with Heb. ^'S, 'messenger' (so Kau., §10, 
2, a, Behr.) is now generally given up, s. the Lexx., Mar. Glossary. 
">''i'. = 'awake, wakeful,' "B uigil, as in Syr., corresponding to the Heb. 
ppl. of "w;, e.g., "^'l ■'5^ Song 5-. (However, lis also = a divine 'mes- 
senger,' was in the original of Is. 63*, where <S> xp^a^u? requires this vs. 
i^ "*?.) Ra. and AEz. have the correct derivation, and observe that the 
being is an angel. 'Watchers' of the EVV is used in the old English 
sense. (S> tr. the two nouns by SyysXoq, by tig x. ayto?; A 36'"b have 
the gloss eypYjyopo.; attached to the prec. [jlou, taken doubtless from Aq. 
and Sym., as a scholion given by Field notes. Jer.'s venture into com- 
parative religion may be observed: "Consuetudo autem graeci et latini 
sermonis Iptv uocat, quae per multicolorem arcum ad terras descendere 
dicitur," a combination approved by Rosen., Hav. The Slavic version 
of Hipp.'s comm. actually tr. etp by 'rainbow,' p. 123, 1. 2. Ehr. at- 
tempts to find our i^y in Ecc. lo^^ but without success. The Chigi 
text of bears the title xb eTp a'ypuxvov, on which the anonymous editor 
has a learned monograph. The second term "^'nii is epexegetical to i^i', 
but not, with Hav., Behr., in order to give it a moral quality, which 
Id^S never implies; a parallel is inSci is, as restored in Is. 63^ v. sup. 
For the hendiadys CBMich. eft. 'the roll and the words,' Jer. 36", 
Bev. 3i'im ij, which is a comprehensive legal term. In v." jia'-'ip is 
II r"'V. Heb. ^''"'i"; is a term for divinities, e.g., Dt. 33^; for angels, e.g., inf. 
8", Zech. 14^; and for saints, e.g., inf. f^- ", where jiB'np is anarthrous 
as in v.", along with in"'>'. — •^^'^j The vivid ppls. of these vv. are 

.10-13 (13-16) 2 3=5 

ignored by the Grr. and "B; but this ppl. is recognized in the reminisccice 
of the passage in Rev. i8'- -. 

11 (14). 7'na Nip] = 3^— Ti-:'?<] poss. in APA G, 1. 35, iP[jnN], 
'remove.'— '7^'in.T] But ^^'^n.-p vv.'- '8; Kau., §68, "durfte als Hebrais- 
mus zu betrachten sein"; Mar. (Gloss.), Lohr accordingly correct to 
mn.-i. Nold. in his review of Kau. notes the discrepancy as an exam- 
ple of the unreliability of If, but does not deny the possibility of the 
rdg. Torrey, Notes, I, 268, defends l|; he eft. Syr. letaht, and argues 
that the rhythm demands the present pointing here. But it may be 
an echo of I'C'?'-' Eze. 17-'.— 12 (15). 1M] = Syr. ekkdr; ^ is a Mass. 
error, after the fashion of shortening the vowel of the const.; ef. "^P-., 
v.", and poss. ^Tf Ezr. 7--; s. Kau., p. 103, n. i. Similar cases are found 
in Aram, words in Heb., e.g., VJ'A Ecc. 4', 5", but VJ}: i"; ID'3 Est. i^, 
etc.; cf. const. ^1 Est. 2'-. The doubled ^ is hardly original (s. on mx 
2'0) I'i- Kau., §59, c. Cf. V^P^-.y 'Ay.-A!xg>(iiv, Akk. Amkarrilna. For the 
vitality of the tree stump cf. Is. 6", 1 1\ Job 14^. — ^nv^nr] 'f is not com- 
mon in Aram.; c/. y~'^'~' Ezr. 7-*, 'eradication, banishment' (?). — iidnoi] 
A fresh vb. is expected; however, the hendiadys is supported by v."^, 
'•.:' -i|iy p^'iT?, and an additional word would overweight the line. — 
NT3 ^T NN,-n2] Behr., followed by Lohr, Ehr., elides as a gloss "welche 
den Ausdruck nj't.s y~'';2, aramaischer umschreiben sollte." But why 
such Aramaic finesse? Those comm. must also elide the phrase in 
v.^", on the rashness of which assumption s. Kamp. On the other hand, 
Mar., followed by Lohr, om. n;"in 2-'>'3, on the ground that it is absent 
in v.*". Torrey accepts this eUsion, p. 269, noting that v.^'"', after TiiS^n, 
is a bald repetition of the present v., and that it is secondary, because 
the interpretation does not verbally repeat the terms of the dream. 
He then ingeniously supposes an original '^i^/''^'' before NNma, compar- 
ing vv.--- -', 5-'; this supplied vb. gives the required item of the king's 
eating grass 'like oxen.' The vb. was early lost before the intrusion of 
v.-"'', and the moment was clumsily introduced at end of the v. The 
word pSn meant then originally 'lot' as at Ezr. 4^^ — i'^ai'^] <B aXXouoG^, 
B al. xo'.TaaeTjoeirat, but v.-° ajXtaGYjaeTott, read here by Or? Lu. al.; 
Q notes S2ip. lin. that xoit. is from Sym. and in mg. that auX. is from 0. 
Was rt. ;'3i understood here (Bert.)? At v.'" correctly ipi:?-^. — 13 
(16). ii•y^:n Kt., '^'ir'i^; Kr.] The Kt. only here and v.", elsewhere as 
the K.r., e.g., vv.-'- '°. But k'un is found in Nab., and cf. above P:T, 
Ir'rv'; s. Powell, Supp. Hebr., p. 34; GB eft. 'EXwt Mt. 27". Kau., p. 
105, assigns the form to kitdl, but Brock., VG 1, 185, to kittdl, with 3 
due to influence of u in orig. 'unds. For nu'ux p cf. iSnc i Sa. 15-', 
"uc Jer. 48^, 'from being king, people,' also Is. 52", etc. Correctly TS 
cor eius ah humano commutetur. — pji:'''] For the impersonal use s. on 
y;2 2"; similarly hif. vv.^- -^- "; cf. Dalman, Worte Jesu, 183. The rt. 


is used in Syr. of insanity (s. Behr.), and also in Akk., e.g., uSanna tenki 
'I will make thee mad' (Pr.).— ^^^'''^'l So edd. exc. Bar 2n\-i>. 

14 (17). The immutability of the divine purpose is stated in 
a solemn formula like the tolling of a heavy bell: By the decree 
of the Vigilants is the command : and by the word of the Holy Ones 
the decision. Hitz. has suggested that we have here a replica of 
some legal formulism; but prob. it was a formula of the astrolo- 
gers. It has been discussed whether we are in presence of Per- 
sian ideas, so Bert., or Babylonian, so Heng., Klief., al. But 
rather this is an expression of the later eclectic determinism, 
with which may be compared the statement of Diodorus Sicu- 
lus, ii, 30, concerning the Babylonian fatalism, copiajxevT) k. 
/SejSatW KeKvpojfjievr] Oeoiv Kpcai<i. Cf. below on the Book of 
Truth lo-^ As noted above, at v.^", the terminology is definitely 
Pagan, although there is also a Biblical background to this 
theologumenon of a divine council; cf. i Ki. 221^^-, Is. 44^6, Job 
1-2, and the 'assembly' or 'council of the holy ones,' Ps. 89®- ^ 
In later Judaism there was a revival of this antique thought; the 
angelic hierarchy is God's senate, j"'T r^2, or his family, S^'7?2S, 
with whom God discusses his decrees; s. Weber, Jiid. Thcol., §35. 
Dr. eft. Sanh. 386, where it is said, "The Holy One does noth- 
ing without first consulting the family above, as it is said (Dan. 
41^): By the decree of the Watchers, etc." Such terminology is 
true to color in a Pagan's vision. The decree is issued and its 
execution ordered not so much for the chastisement of Neb., 
but that in the fate of him, the type of human pride and glory, 
all living may learn that the Highest is potentate in the kingdom of 
man — one of the immortal sentences of the Hebrew Scriptures ! 
Cf. Rev. ii^^, 'the kingdom of the world shall become the king- 
dom of the Lord.' This principle is further specified, that God 
gives it to whom he will, and the humblest of men he can raise up 
over it — a truism in the facts of history, to be exemplified after 
a few years in Neb.'s own successors. As vLeng. observes, this 
is a common theme of the Bible; cf. i Sa. 2^- *, Eze. ly^^Ps. 
113'- 8, Job 5", Lu. i^S I Cor. i""^^-, etc. 

15 (18). The relation of the dream concluded, the king makes 
his appeal in pathetic accents to Dan. to give the interpretation, 
for the latter possesses the spirit of holy God {cf. v.^), whereas 
the royal wise men have proved incompetent. As has been re- 

.14. 15 (17. 18) ^^^ 

4 237 

marked by comm., those professionals would hardly have dared 
to interpret to their royal master the obviously ill-omened sense 
of the dream. 

14 (17). ^y..]] For similar pass, formations, e.g. nnhicy, inf., mpi 
7", s. on nay 2"; a few cases in Syr., Nold., SG §111. For the technical 
meaning of 'J as divine 'decree,' hence practically 'fate,' s. on pnu 
2". — jn^y] © (sip) g- as sing.; & also tr. av^np by a sing. For the 
anarthrous state of these pis., cf. Di^-ip Ps. 89*, Job 5^ — icnci] mss 
also 'C31, and so the citations in Talm. (s. Bar's note), followed by Ehr., 
al.; confirms 1^. But z^^. Mar., who reads this clause, with 0, as an 
independent sentence, the obvious exact parallelism of the two clauses 
demands the same construction for 'o as for mu; so JDMich., al.; for 
similar cases of implied prepositional government in parallehsm in Heb., 
s. GK §119, hh. "B was misled by and tr. et sermo sanctorum et petilio. 
— nhSni:'] The parallel ncj^j) (s. at 3^0, as in Ecc. 8", has here the mng. 
'decree' as the judicial 'response,' so Sa.., jawdb, and the parallelism 
must set the mng. of 'c. But the comm. have widely differed. Depend- 
ing upon the primary mng. of 'Z', the Jewish comm. tr. by 'request,' 
so Ra.: the holy ones are consulted first by God — that is the request 
(c/. H); Klief. tr. 'Beforderung [zu dem Zwecke, dass],' a construc- 
tion which destroys the unitary character of the couplet; Cha.'s sugges- 
tion, 'the word of the holy ones is the matter in question,' is meaning- 
less. Schultens, Animadv., 323, c/L Arab, mas'alat used in the sense of 
'thing' (s. also on nSs', 3-'), and tr. 'ad decretum uigilum res fit' (so 
also deDieu earlier). But ';:• = 'the thing asked about,' and so the 
'decision' upon it. In Targ. to Jer. 12' ]''jn nSnv^r tr. Heb. D^astrc. 
Further, form II, i of Akk. sa'dlu is used of mutually asking questions 
and so of coming to a decision; hence Shamash is miiUalurn 'decider'; 
and the derivative situltu = 'Berathung, Entscheidung ' ; s. Del., Hwb., 
p. 633. See in general Jastrow, 'Name of Samuel and the Stem Sxii',' 
JBL 1900, 82 f., who considers the Heb. and Rabb. testimony on the 
use of the rt., but does not note the present case. A magical personage, 
Skp'^I'S na, 'son of oracle-giver' (?), appears in abowl text; see my Aram. 
Incant. Texts, 152.— n mai ly] Cf. n m^-i ^>' 2^°, which is also read 
by many mss here, and is accepted by Hitz., Kau., §11, 2, Kamp., Bev., 
Pr., Mar., Lohr. But "i;' is corroborated by (8 ew^ and If donee, and the 
sense is, 'until they shall know'; cf. Behr., al. We find the assimilation 
of h in S;? in late Aram., s. Nold., MG §54, but there is no reason to 
demand here this later vernacular use. — ^''^'J'*, ■?^'] The const, has 
comparative mng., s. Kau., §85, 4, and for Syr. cf. Duval, GS §366, a. 
B correctly humillimum hominem. For ha'y (B 49 90) e?ouSivT5;j.a 
(other MSB variant forms) ; cf. i Cor. i^s Tct s^ouOeviQiAivjt s^sXs^axo h 
656?. oiii-jN, D^D'7N 7'", disSd Ezr. 4" are scribal errors for j , s. Kau., 


§51, 2, Powell, Supp. Hebr., p. 51 (who, however, allows their possibil- 
ity). Unlike the sufSxes an, oj Ezr. 3^, 5', there is no support for the 
variation of -im for -in in the papp. Mar. would read nc-jn, but the pi. 
is pertinent here; in Syr. the pi. = xivsg in general, but also 'people'; 
s. Nold., SG p. 90, Schulthess, Lex., s.v.—15 (18). NTi-D 1° Kt., "Tf? 
Kr. ] So edd., many mss r\-\yo Kt. U support Kt., only 34 h'-- + aOxoO 
= 0. — Ni-'D 2°] = Or? (+ Q) = 1; © Tb auyxpi(Aa auTou, cf. 5MSS Ken. 
rna>fl. — StjXwffat, 36™^ qiavspbv -nrof^aat. 

16-24 (19-27). Dan.'s interpretation of the dream. It is in- 
troduced by the description of the effect made upon Dan. by 
the king's narrative. The word used is variously translated: B 
intra semetipsum tacitus, in which Jer. must have followed a 
Jewish interpretation, as Ra. gives the same (priw^); so SV; AV 
RV 'was astonied,' JV 'was appalled.' But the vb. is not to 
be taken at its extreme {vs. Dr.), but like other psychological 
terms of the Sem. be understood from the circumstances. A 
mng. like 'was perplexed, embarrassed,' is more suitable; cf. the 
same vb. with this sense in 8^^ His embarrassment was due to 
the necessity of unfolding the ill-omened dream to its subject, 
and was characteristic of his humanity. The perplexity lasted 
for a moment (not for an hour with AV!), but long enough to 
show that his thoughts were troubling him. The king with equal 
grace and courtesy reassures him, bids him not to be troubled, 
and the seer in reply expresses the generous wish, ' an expression 
of civility and courtesy' (Jeph.), that, The dream be for thy 
enemies : and its interpretation for thy rivals! 17-19 (20-22). He 
briefly resumes the dream, in variant words from the original 
narration, and makes interpretation of the tree that. It is thou, 
O king, thou who grewest great and strong, whose sovereignty 
reached the end of the earth. 20. He summarizes the second act 
of the dream drama, still more briefly than the first telling, if 
with Torrey (s. Notes) we should excise as secondary the latter 
part of the v., but the root, etc. 21. He proceeds to its interpre- 
tation: This is the interpretation, king, for (= afid) the decree 
of the Highest it is which has befallen my lord the king : 22 (25) 
that ( = and) thee they will drive out from human kind (with im- 
pers. use of the 3d pers. pi.). The seer defines the decree as not 
of fate, nor ultimately of the Vigilants, but of God himself; s. 
at v.i*. In v.22(26) |-}^g veiled allusions of v.'^cis)^ which might 
have defied the skill of any Magians, are definitely interpreted: 

4I6-24 (19-27) 239 

the king is to have his lodging in company with the wild beasts, is 
lo be fed like oxen, to be drenched with the dew of heaven, atid seven 
times shall pass over him, until he shall know that the Highest is 
sovereign in the kingdom of man; he himself is to learn this and 
through his experience all 'living beings/ the utterance of v.^^ ^"> 
being now precised. But in the philanthropy of the story Neb.'s 
doom is not to be like that of other arrogant tyrants, for example 
Antiochus Epiphanes, who too late on his death-bed 'came to 
recognition' (el? iirHyvcocnv) that 'a mortal should not be minded 
as though he were like God' (2 Mac. 9"- ^-, rdg. la-oOea c^povelv 
with text, rec); but the divine power will triumph in him. In 
accordance with this purpose is the interpretation of the stump 
left in the ground (v.^^ (26)) . u^y kingdom is enduring for thee after 
thou comest to know that Heaven is sovereign. For the first time in 
Jewish religion (s. Notes) we meet with 'Heaven' as surrogate 
for 'God'; the word may have been chosen here with tact in 
contrast to the baseness of all that is of the earth earthy. The 
term itself is one which like ' the Highest ' has entered into the 
syncretistic vocabulary of the later religion and would have been 
understood by a cultured Pagan, Persian or Semite or Western. 
But, v.2*<")^ with the benevolence characteristic of the Bible 
religion the doom may be averted by the king 'bringing forth 
fruits worthy of repentance.' As Jonah preached his rough gos- 
pel of repentance to the Ninevites, so Dan. offers his gentle 
counsel to the king, that thou break of thy sins by right-doing 
and thy transgressions by showing mercy to the afflicted. The long 
twelve months that intervened before the calamity was respite 
for the possible repentance. It may be observed that this simple 
moral code was about all that could be demanded of a Pagan, — 
'to do justice and love mercy,' 'to leave off from evil and to 
do good' (Ps. 34^^), for there was no thought of his conversion 
to the Jewish religion. But Catholics and Protestants have 
made this a locus classicns for their dispute over 'good works'; 
e.g., Pole ad loc: "Pontificii {i.e., Papists) ex hoc loco satisfac- 
tiones suas et merita colligunt." See the reviews of the discus- 
sion in Hav., dEnv., Knab. In part the strife lies about the 
word 'righteousness,' Tl'pi'^, on which opinion varies, whether 

it is to be understood in the general sense or in the later Jewish 
denotation (passing over into the Syr. and Arab.) of 'almsgiv- 
ing.' This is without doubt the eldest and most constant inter- 


pretation, that of Grr.,^!! (eleemosynis), Jewish comm., most 
Cath. scholars (so Knab.), JV, and also of some Prot. comm., 
e.g., Grotius, Berth., and of Calvin, with a shading of the word 
as 'benignity.' The almost equivalence of 'righteousness' and 
'almsgiving' appears in Tobit (a book as old at least as our 
stories), where the two terms are constantly paired, e.g., 12', 
14". In the Talm. 'righteousness' = 'almsgiving,' and there 
are approximations to this mng. in N.T. There is corresponding 
parallelism elsewhere in O.T., e.g., Ps. 37^', 112^. And indeed 
why the Protestants should quarrel with the Catholics over the 
Biblical virtue of charity it is hard to see. A Christian might 
oppose the Lord's counsel to the Rich Young Man, Mk. lo-^; 
also the character of Dorcas, who was 'full of good works ( = 
Rabb. W'2''0 WU]!^) and charities' (Acts g^^), and of Cornehus 
whose chief virtues were his 'charity to the people' and his 
prayers {ib., lo^). But it is better not to identify ' righteousness' 
here too exactly with 'almsgiving'; rather it is the general ex- 
pression for good works, in which sense it is used in the Sermon 
on the Mount, where, Mt. 6^^-, BiKULoavvr] is followed by the 
specific terms of alms, prayer and fasting. Similarly here right- 
eousness is particularly specified by charity. A more crucial 
question is the mng. of p"iS, translated in EVV by 'break oflF,' 
for which, however, the ancient rendering was 'redeem,' so Grr. 
XvrpcbaaL^ ^ redime (so prob. ^ which transliterates ^). The 
latter mng. is that held by AEz., Cath. comm. in general, also 
some Prot. scholars, e.g., Grotius, Bert.,Zock., RVmg; the former 
by Sa., Ra., Calv. and most Prot. comm., also dEnv. The for- 
mer interpretation has philological corroboration from the O.T., 
the other and elder understanding being based upon the later 
development of the rt. as 'redeem.' 

16 (19). ani.nt-'N] Kau., §36, regards this and i>':'3iD?: Ezr. 6' as 
Hebraisms. But Nold., ZDMG 1876, p. 326, had claimed such forms 
as genuine Aramaic; for similar kantal formations in Syr. s. Duval, GS 
§197, Nold., SG §180, and for their treatment as kaittal rather than as 
Idtal s. Powell, Supp. Hehr., pp. 44/. — '"iin n>-^o] 'For a mome.nt,' 
rather than with RV JV, 'for a while,' or the absurd 'for one hour' of 
AV; s. on r\yz' 36. The prep, d = time at which, as in Heb., e.g., 8^ 
(s. BDB 454^), not with 6 & 1 as quasi una hora. — ntj'd Kt., ^T-^2 Kr.j 
Q & 1 = Kr. — © om. the clause iSnji . . . n^Sd r\y;, through confu- 
sion with the foil. 'a?a njj;. The lacuna was supphed by Or^ c Lu. — 

^16-24 (19-27) 241 

I'^n^^] Mar., Gr. §52, after Bev., Behr., has recognized this and iiSnai 
5'" as true juss. forms with omission of the usual energetic element n 
before the suff. Similar cases are found in the monuments, e.g., Tema 
Inscr. (CIS ii, no. 113) 1. 14, ^ninsr, and in the papp., but the usage 
is not consistent, s. Sachau, APO p. 270, a; similarly the impfs. vy"\ 
jio'^n'' V." have juss. mng. — "iN"\D Kt., "'1? Kr.] ^r. represents the later 
pronunciation; Kt. is supported by the papp., but an ostrakon presents 
n:;, s. Cowley, PSBA 1903, pp. 264/. = Eph., 2, 236/. — ymz'] The 
rt. as strong i<"^ always in the papp., and in some cases in Syr., s. Nold., 
SG §172, C. — l'"^'!] Originally participial form from "nj:, s. Kau., §58, 
2, h. The ppl. gained the technical sense of 'rival,' s. Lexx. s.v. heb. 
Tix. — 19 (22). noSd Nin nnjN] 'It is thou, O king'; cf. for a similar 
period 2"- ^^ — n] Rel. pronoun, 'who.' — n-'^T Kt., ^?1 Kr.] Kau., p. 79, 
rightly regards the Kr. as 'incomprehensible.' M has carried to the 
extreme its standardizing process of eliminating y in the diphthong. I 
cannot follow Torrey's defence of M in his Notes, I, 271. — 1^''^~1] Bev. 
notes the form as 'very peculiar': we should e.xpect T^^-""^ after the 
analogy of the Syr. But the former, along with the latter, occurs abun- 
dantly in the Targ.; it is here a cognate nominative: 'thy growth waxed.' 
— njr] i-jie j-^^ jg found in the papp. both as noc and n-jr; e.g., pn-jd 
APO pap. 13, 1. 2, but roc, pap. 28, 1. 6. The pointing here, in place of 
expected '^?'^, may represent orig. '^b'"-?"; otherwise Torrey, I.e. Also s. 
on r.133 v.^'. — s>'is iidS] mss also 'x So t]^oh = "B; & 'to all ends of 
the earth. — 20 (23). ir-nj] B V 106 5MSS pref. Iv. — (xuliG^rflSTar. s. 
at v.'^. — pcSni] dXkoiu)Q(baiy but v." dXXaYTjaovxac. — Torrey's po- 
sition that all of v.-° after imS^n is secondary is very reasonable; I will 
simply cite his argument (p. 269): "The proof of the fact that the 
passage in vs. 20 is merely a scribe's repetition from vs. 12 is found not 
only in the remainder of verses 20-23 (where it is evident that the plan 
of the original writer was to refer in a few words to each of the main fea- 
tures of the dream — divine command; destruction of the tree; the 
stump left in the ground — and not to repeat the original wording), but 
also, and especially, in the old Greek translation, in which this part of 
vs. 20 is lacking." 

21 (24). ntj'd] Also MSS rn-j-c = 4- auTou. — .-nrji] & "& om. conj.; 
IS haec est inter pretalio sententiae, etc., attempting to obtain a more sat- 
isfactory connection. Here and continuing into v.^- with ^S1 there is a 
simple alignment of clauses without logical articulation; cf. Kau., §102, 
Mar., Gr. §130.— n^on Kt., "?? Kr., so Bar, Str.; al. ri?° Kt. (also M^); 
Mich. ^'^^] For the rt. s. at v.". Kau., p. 79, Kamp., comm. generally, 
regard Kt. as error. Torrey's valuable comments correctly illuminate 
the form; it is survival of the ancient stative, i.e., as ^''?^, instanced in 
Syr., e.g., Jer. 32"' .nvjD, and in Mand. nNioic; point accordingly '^2?'?. 
— 22 (25). mnS] Otherwise always wnh, s. at 220. — jmn] -\in occurs 


in APO pap. 5, 1. 10 (not recognized by Sachau), s. Cowley, AP no. 33. 
— pyjXD] The most notable case of this impersonal use of the 3d pi.; 
particularly d propos to the present case is Lu. 12^°, ■zxutq xfj vuxxl 
fjjv t^uxTjv CTou aiTouatv dicb aou (n.b. present tense). — 23 (26). ^'f'L!] 
= 'persisting, abiding,' with ref. to Neb.'s hfe; in 6-' as epithet of God. 
— n }d] Of time, so Ezr. 5'-; = Syr. n p or no p; cf. Arab. prep. 
mundu, 'since'; for the impf. in place of the poss. pf. cf. Nold., SG §267. 
— x^Stt"] As surrogate for 'God' also i Mac. 2>^^, etc., P. Ahoth i, 3, etc., 
Lu. i5''- -', and elsewhere in N.T.; cf. 'kingdom of Heaven' = 'k. of 
God'; for the Rabb. use s. Dalman, Worte Jesu, §viii, and for the Ht- 
erature Schurer, GJV ii, 268, n. 47. For corresponding use in the 
Pagan religions (e.g., Latin Coelus) s. vLeng., and Cumont, Monuments 
relatifs au.x mysteres de Milhra, 87, Les religions orietitales, c. 5, n. 64. 
The VSS generally avoid the heathen implication. 

24 (27). pS] 'Therefore,' s. at 2«.— ndSc] Kenn. 80, ^ om., 2mss 
Kenn. om. •'jSd. — 117;?] For the Aram, idiomatic use of *?;; = *? s. at 
2^*, and cf. inry 6"- "■ ^*; similar (Aramaizing?) use in Heb., e.g., ^7j? mflB» 
Ps. i6«, s. BDB 758a, GB 588a; for Mand., Nold., MG §158, and 
idioms in Arab., Wright, Gr. §59, b. In 3^' Dip is used. — yen Kt., 1??^ 
^r.] If regarded as a sing, the Kt. shows thickening of n into '; parallel 
is Syr. hatdhd. As pi., as is most likely, so VSS, EVV, Kamp., etc., we 
should expect with Hitz., Bev. TTt", with the Kr. representing 1''')'J?P, 
But it is possible that the form is equivalent of Heb. ^'■^^, with loss of 
N, i.e., 1'!?q.— ^1^7?] S. Comm.; for 's 'alms' in Talm., cf. P. Ahoth, v, 
13 (19) and s. Talm. Lexx. For Jewish and early Christian approxima- 
tions of SixaioauvT] to this mng. s. N.T. Lexx. and GB p. 6756. In 
Gen. 15* 's is a work of religion, a 'merit'; cf. its use in the TemS, 
Inscr. as 'a religious due' (Bev.). In 9'^ 'S otherwise. — pno] For the 
VSS and comm. s. Comm. The vb. is best e.xplained from its use in 
Heb., e.g.. Gen. 27", 'and thou shalt break off (npna) his yoke from 
thy neck,' where Targ. Jer. tr. with the same vb.; so Ra. with reminis- 
cence of that passage. Cf. P. Ahoth, iii, 9 (8), 'whoever casts off (pms) 
the yoke of the Law.' Secondarily, 'd was used in the Targg. as = 
Snj, yz'>, 'redeem, save,' e.g., Ju. ii'^ Is. 45'^ which mng. it has in 
Syr., e.g., purkdnd = 'salvation.' Hence there was an apparent philo- 
logical justification for 'redeem' here, as followed by the VSS, but not 
in the context, as Keil rightly observes: "well die Siinden kein Gut 
sind, das man einlost oder ablest." — I'!"?] Inf. of ]:n. — V^i Mich., al. 
tl^'i] The form with Mich.'s accentuation (s. on ]■<:•;, f*) is pass. ppl. 
of r\y;, 'be lowly,' with the sing, "^yi.; so GB, Konig, Hwb., vs. Kau., 
§57, a, p, who argues for katdl form, so BDB. The other accentuation 
is prob. reminiscent of Heb. ^'l^^'i 'the meek' of the land; s. Rahlfs, 
ly; und uy in den Psalmen. The ppl. form is corroborated by Targ. 
^""M. The writer has argued, JBL 1909, 59, that the same word ap- 

.25-30 (28-33) 24.-? 

pears in the ZKR Inscr., 1. 2, where ny; ij'n = 'man of humble birth'; 
Torrey similarly, JAOS 3$ (1917)) 356/., translating 'in distress.' Ac- 
cordingly the Aram, word is not 'an imitation' of the Heb., vs. Pr., 
who, after vLeng., regards it in the technical sense of 'the poor' of the 
Pss., i.e., the Lord's people. — 1\}] For the indirect question cf. the use 
of ON Job i", etc.; also Acts 8^^, e! dfpa.— '^r.^] Found APA D, 1. 4. 
So 3 here and 7^^, s. Bar and Kau., p. 94; cf. ^^31'' 2'=, idSd; s. on the 
next word.— 1^1*:?] The strong rt. also in Heb., e.g., '^t^^. For the 
formation s. Earth, Nb., §62, 2, c, as katilat, cf. Brock., VG i, §140; 
treated by Kau., §57, c, as ^alel. For the mng. cf. ^'7.'^^ v.^ The VSS 
render here differently: (B and most Mss) euTai (xaxp66ujAoq {cf. Heb. 
adj. tin) Tots TcapaTCTwpLaafv aou (4MSS de R. l-'^V '''•'; cf. iStt* 3-') 6 Qsiq; 
OrP Lu. om. 6 6e6c;, and Lu. has naxpoGu^jita; prob. b 6e6c; is secondary 
in ©texts. S» 'until he remove (pnnj) from thee thy transgressions ' ; "B 
forsilan ignoscai (Am.) delictis tuis (sc. deus as in orig. ©). Sa., Jeph., 
Ra. have the interpretation now generally adopted, e.g., EW, 'a 
lengthening of thy tranquillity.' But AEz. (so also Gr^en) understood 
^^"^^.t as in Heb., = 'healing,' and followed the VSS in rendering '^ as 
'error'; so Calv., Mlinster, hence mg. of AV RVV, 'a healing of thy 

25-30 (28-33). It all happened to king Nebuchadnezzar. When 
at the end of twelve months, the time of the divine respite, he was 
walking upon the royal palace of Babylon, possibly upon the 
famous Hanging Gardens, the remains of which Koldewey be- 
lieves he has discovered, he spake and said : Is not this Babylon 
the Great, which I have built for a royal residence ? While the word 
was still in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, which 
announces the hour of doom. The details of the divine decree, 
obscurely set forth in the dream, clearly interpreted by Dan., 
are solemnly rehearsed. At that very moment the word was fid- 
jilled. One new touch only is added to the description of the 
terrible mania which befell him: His hair grew like eagles' feath- 
ers and his nails like those of birds. 

The setting of the scene and the king's self-complaisance in 
his glorious Babylon are strikingly true to history. Every stu- 
dent of Babylonia recalls these proud words in reading Neb.'s 
own records of his creation of the new Babylon; for instance 
(Grotefend Cylinder, KB iii, 2, p. 39): "Then built I the palace 
the seat of my royalty (ekallu milMb larriltia), the bond of the 
race of men, the dwelling of joy and rejoicing"; and (East India 


House Inscr., vii, 34, KB ib., p. 25): "In Babylon, my dear city, 
which I love was the palace, the house of wonder of the people, 
the bond of the land, the brilliant place, the abode of majesty 
in Babylon." The very language of the story is reminiscent of 
the Akkadian. The glory of Babylon, 'that great city' (Rev. 
18), remained long to conjure the imagination of raconteurs. For 
the city's grandeur as revealed to the eye of the archaeologist we 
may refer to R. Koldewey, Das wieder erstehende Babylon, 1913 
(Eng. tr. Excavations at Babylon, 191 5), with its revelation of 
Neb.'s palace, the temples, etc. (c/. summary by the same writer 
in Arch. Anzeiger, 1918, coll. 73-81); further, to L. W. King, A 
History of Babylon, 191 5 (c. 2 treats the remains and excava- 
tions) ; and for a recent discussion of the size of Babylon and a 
defence of the reliability of the Classical refif., W. H. Lane, Baby- 
lonian Problems, 1923 (esp. c. 7). For the Classical refif. s. the 
appendices to these last two works, Bochart, Phaleg, lib. iv, cc. 
13-15, and Rawlinson, SGM 'The Fourth Monarchy,' c. 4. Ace. 
to Pliny, Seleucus Nicator (c. 300) drained the city of its in- 
habitants, but its decayed magnificence must have remained to 
that age, enough to keep alive the memory of the ancient glory. 
For the bestial appearance of the insane Neb. (a common ab- 
normality) Ball, Daniel, 27, eft. the description of the 'Baby- 
lonian Job': 'Like a she-ndkim or a ^Uht-devaon he made my 
finger-nails grow'; and he finds other points of contact between 
the Bab. story and Dan. 4, pp. 30 /. Also cf. the Ahikar story, 
'my nails were grown long like eagles,' Harris's tr., p. 91, and s. 
his remarks, p. Iviii. 

25 (28). s'^d] See at 2"; if used nominally here (not adverbially, 
'altogether'), then the adverbial form has taken rank as a noun.— 
Noc] Elsewhere na^; s. at v.-'. M's paragraphing is erroneously placed 
between vv."- 26.-26 (29). nspS] So v."; otherwise nxi"' jd 2«. The 
sentence is nominal, dependent on the foil. v. — Sj^n] See at v.'; vay^ 
36"*, IvTw o'ltxw. — S23 IT n.-iidSd] 0& variously. — 27 (30). ncNi . . . r\y;] 
For this 'responding' to circumstances, practically 'beginning' to 
speak, cf. 2-0, Zech. 3*, Job 3=, Song 2", Mt. 1 1", Mk. 9=.— «^lI] Assevera- 
tive particle; for the equivalent Heb. '^■'!! s. BDB 5203, GB 374a. — 
Nr3i Saa] Cf. Gen. lo'', Jon. i^, Rev. i8^— ^''^'•J?) So the received M; 
also MSS '?, and ?, s. Bar, Str., Gin.; what is intended by the anomalous 
pointing is obscure, s. Kau., §15, c. — liT'?, also mss IP-"'' IP'"^] = *<?P'"? 
2". Torrey, Notes, I, 273 (also Socin cited in GB) rightly corrects the 

431-34 (34-37) ^45 

usual assignment of this form to ketdl {e.g., Kau., §57, a), remarking: 
"The slight variation in pronunciation (0 for u) is a matter of small 
concern." The -;- may have been chosen to pair with \'. — ijDn] 
VSS EVV 'of my power,' and so coram., exc. Behr. 'meines Reich- 
thums'; rather = 'tenure, possession,' s. at 2". — ^^P^'h] (g xXTjGTjaeTat, 
i.e., li^kare. — 28 (31). -\v;] In the papp. APO, also t; APA ; also in 
Targ., ChrPal.— N^D-^' p Sp] Cf. Mt. 3^^ 17', Jn. i2'8, 2 Pet. i", etc.; 
s. Dalman, 'Bath Kol,' PRE^ 443, Worie Jesu, §viii, i. The same term, 
nSp mi, appears in the Pagan Syriac story of Aljikar for the divine re- 
sponse to the hero's prayer for a son at the beginning of the narrative; 
accordingly it is 'common-Semitic' — hs:] So with Sip Is. 9'. — .-ny] 
xapfjXOsv, 36™8 xape^wpT). — 30 (33). -\-^-\:2] Pass. Peil. — yz'J-i^] 
correctly e^iipT), vs. vv.'"- =^ — jns'jj] oddly enough, w? Xe6vtwv, 
prob. in reminiscence of d, ol Zwxic, (xou wasl Xe6vtoi;. 

31-34 (34-37). Neb.'s restoration. With simple but profound 
significance return of reason is said to have come to the king 
with his recognition of the true God. The statement, remarks 
Bev., "offers a curious parallel with Euripides, Bacchae, 1265^., 
where the same thing happens to the frenzied Agaue." He adds 
that the likeness is the more remarkable because the Bacchants 
were in some way assimilated to animals, wearing the skins of 
beasts, etc. Then follows the content of the king's blessing and 
praise of God, which represents, stated in the 3d person, his 
meditations upon the irresistible power of God. In v.'^ "^^ the 
statement that his intelligence returned to him is repeated from 
v.^'; Mar. would delete the repetition, which however serves to 
indicate the two results of the conversion, there in the spiritual, 
here in the temporal field of restoration to even greater glory. 

34 (37). There follows, with the technical particle now, Neb.'s 
public confession, the climax of the edict. His proclamation of 
God as King of Heaven, a term unique in the Scriptures (but 
cf. Jer. lo^- 1", Ps. 48^ 93I, etc.) is advisedly chosen. Neb. holds 
his fief from Him who is King in heaven and in the kingdom of 

31(34). 2)n>] Toney, Notes, I, 273: " This imaginative impf. is com- 
pletely interchangeable with the pf. tense"; s. Kau., §73, 4, Mar., Gr. 
§101. But vs. Kau. we have here genuine early Aram, diction (lost in 
Syr.), which is itself characteristic of the 'common-Semitic' use of the 
two 'tenses.' — '^51?] So Biir, Gin., s. Bar's note and Kau., §g, Anm. 4, 
c; al. n3n3._Nr>y^ ^n] cf. the antique D^iy Sn Gen. 21", etc.— 32 (35). 


^i?] Many mss n'^3; VSS w; oJBiv, etc. For the sense cf. Is. 40'' 
njj pNi DMjn and 59^° aij;? l^xj 'like those without eyes' (Torrey). I 
find the same use of nS in Syr., Clem. Rjm., ed. de Lagarde, p. 50, 1. 25 
'ji 12D N;?''r3i N^S 'he thought it as naught and cheap to deceive us.' 
Bev. proposed non respiciendi, but this is 'flat' (Kamp.). Yoma 20b 
makes nS = xjin 'sun motes' (s. Bar, Behr.), repeated by Ra. But 
Sa. tr. 'Uke nothing.' Torrey, Notes, II, 232, thinks of a conflation of 
xSr and ^^, 'all of it,' i.e., the earth. But for the spelling cf. Dt. 3" 
and (?) Job 6^'. — xid'J' S^n] = o^D^'n njx, = oTpaxia oJpiv.oc; Lu. 2". 
For the thought Behr. eft. Is. 24'': 'Yhwh will punish the host of the 
height above (annn) in the height and the kings of the earth upon the 
earth.' — nT«a Nnoi] A technical expression in Targ., Talm. for 're- 
proving, interfering with,' s. Talm. Lexx.; it was prob. based on some 
symbolic legal action. Schultens, Animadv. 324, eft. the similar Arab. 
daraba 'ala yadihi, and so Sa. actually tr. here. For Nnai, B al. ivxc- 
xotT)asTa'., Lu. Q h'^' 12MSS avTtffTYjjcTott, which is the rdg. in the 
citation Wis. 12'^. IB resistat manui eius = EVV, 'stay his hand.' — 
.-13;? n:;] The same phrase in Is. 45^, Job 9'-, Ecc. 8*, cf. 2 Sam. 16". 
— 33 (36). "'iT't] So M.\ on the anomalous vowel a, vs. v.", s. on -in;; 
v.'^— '11^1 With EVV, etc., also Sa., it is safest to hold by ^ and to 
understand 'n as parallel noun with mm. The most ancient tradition 
understood it as a vb., -^XOov 'H penieni (& has lost ^Sj; ami . . . api"? 
by homoiotel.), the reason for which is revealed by Ra., who tr. 'n by 
inirn = Aram, m^n, 'I returned,' a vb. which also later appears as 
■nn. Our word being thus identified with Tin, the "• was understood 
as representing the EAram. termination of the ist sing, in 1; so ncy, 
11', was treated by ©B. Geier, Behr., al. have followed suit. The error 
was reasonable on basis of later linguistic premises, and it must be 
allowed that a vb. here would keep the balance of the consecutive 
clauses better. Other combinations of the words have been proposed, 
for which s. Bev.; Mar. suggests that ^hy 2i.-i"i . . . ipiSi is ancient 
gloss to the end of v."; Lohr, Cha. would delete the prec. sentence. 
But Torrey, p. 275, rightly remarks that verbal repetitions are emi- 
nently characteristic of Dan. It must be admitted that ip^S makes 
difficulty; the rdg. ip'', with "ivr mn as appositives, would simphfy 
the construction. May the prep, have entered with the construction of 
mn as a vb. — an exegesis as old as and B? — P^'?! Bar, Str., Gin., 
Kit.,'?' Mich.] Mar. desiderates a Peal, but Torrey, i6.: "the unusual 
pael stem is used here, obviously for its added effect." — '^^\i^^ Bar, Str.; 
pj_ j^B Mich., Gin., Kit. (also mss ^\~, s. Gin.)] The first pointing 
alone is possible here; the other rhymes with ncDin^ Qn the genuine 
.\ram. Hof. (so also the following neoin), vs. Kau., §34 and others 
(regarding the phenomenon as a Hebraism), s. Powell, Supp. Hebr., pp. 
4T ff., who gives the literature. Nine instances are found in BAram., 


apart from the questionable forms of nnx, s. at 3". — 34 (37). anno] 
On this stem, s. on aninB'N v.^'. — nt'^ ■j-'c] Unique phrase in O.T., = 
H-'T^-y N-is 5", found also i Esd. 4" f^ ; appropriate in a Pagan mouth, but 
avoided by the Jew; cf. 'the Queen of Heaven,' Jer. 7^'. — |n] B A al. 
xpfostc = B, Q c xpimq. — r?;^'?] Haf. as in 3-^; s. there my sugges- 
tion that there is implied the denominative idea of walking after the 
Halaka.— ^:?.] = Heb. ""V^l s. GB. 


(S has a narrative, which despite its omission of much of the material of 
1^ is a quarter longer than the latter's text. For detailed criticism and com- 
mentary of (S's text reference may be made to Hahn, Daniel, Blud., §18, 
and Jahn. The following is a brief resume of (g's narrative (citations after 
Swete's enumeration of the vv.). 

The introductory salutation in ^, 331-33^ has been omitted, but was rein- 
troduced from 0, as indicated by the Hexaplaric marks. In place of it are 
found two parallel proclamations at the end, v.^*''. c_ gut y.^^" contains, with 
expansion, exactly the contents of l^'s salutation, a fact proving that in 
an earlier form of 05 this preface stood in its original place. A date, the 
i8th year of the king, is given in v.^ (the same in (B 3S interpolated also 
into at that place), doubtless to make the point of the condemnation of 
the king for his destruction of Jerusalem at that epoch; the point is specified 
as indictment against Neb. in v.'**. Vv.^-* are omitted for the apparent 
reason of the incongruity of the king's consulting the astrologers first after 
he had found Dan. preferable to them, as in c. 2. The account of the tree 
in the dream is sadly confused and absurdly amplified. To v.^* is added a 
repetitious supplement to the narrative of the dream, and there follows an 
account of the king's concern, which induced him to call in Dan. The lat- 
ter's demeanor, v.'^, is described more at length than in ^. In his interpre- 
tation of the dream the details are explained one by one, vv."--', and there 
are further supplements in those vv. and vv.-^- -^ The divine announce- 
ment to the king in v.-* is expanded by a long reference to 'a worthless man 
in his house,' who shall usurp his place. Finally comes the king's story of 
his seven years of humiliation and of his recovery and consequent homage 
to God, to whom he engages to make sacrifice all the days of his life, 
VY_3o-34a_ ^g noticed above, the narrative concludes with the two proclama- 
tions, one, v.'^'', 'an encyclical letter,' in which he commands his people to 
praise the God of heaven and to ofifer sacrifice to him, recounting the divine 
favor to himself; the other, v.^*", representing the original preface at the 
beginning of the story. At end of v.'*" is the statement that he sent letters 
to all the nations of his kingdoms, this attaching properly to v.^''. 

For the character in general of the variations of C6 from 1^ s. Int., §11. 
In c. 4, as elsewhere in cc. 3-6, the variant material has been diagnosed by 


almost all scholars since the publication of the text of C5 as purely midrashic; 
e.g., Bert., p. 125, Blud., p. 148. It has been left to a few modern scholars 
to acclaim the superiority of ^; so Riessler, p. 33, Jahn, p. 47, and Cha., 
p. 37. The latter holds that "the older order of the text is preserved in the 
LXX and not in the Aramaic," and for this decision gives these three chief 
reasons: (i) We should expect from the analogy of c. 3 that the narrative 
of Neb.'s experience should he followed by the king's edict. But why? Fur- 
ther, Cha. is in error in remarking that there is nothing in (& corresponding 
to the first three vv. in If; as observed above, this original introduction has 
survived, but has been transferred to the end, v.'*"^, in which the future 
tense, 'I will show,' indicates its original place. — (2) The uniform 3d person 
of C6 should be preferred as original. This point has been discussed and 
answered in the Int. to the Comm. on the chap. — (3) "The LXX shows 
its superiority in omitting vv.*-^ which recounts the king's summons of all 
the wise men" first, and in "representing the king as at once sending for 
Daniel in v.^^." This point has been met above in Comm. on vv.*-''. — It may 
further be remarked that if it is true, after Jahn, p. 36, that " the attempts 
to prove our piece [c. 4] historical, are particularly weak, even ridiculous," 
the narrative of (S only heightens the absurdity. What can be thought of 
the great tree with branches 30 stadia long in which dwelt the sun and 
moon (vv.*- ') ? There is the exaggeration of making Neb. undertake to 
sacrifice to the Jewish God and also command his people to do the same; 
certainly, as against Riessler, a secondary exaggeration. In v.^' appears the 
earliest stage of the legend in Syriac and Jewish comm. that Neb.'s throne 
was usurped by his son Evil-Merodach; also an obscure historical reference 
appears further down in the same v. about 'another king from the East.' 

A more serious question pertains to the critical character of (B, which is 
manifestly composite; even Jahn elides considerable sections. In several 
passages, for one or more sentences, (S runs parallel with 1^, with the usual 
freedom arrogated by <B in translation. © was evidently acquainted with 
05 and followed it when it was usable, e.g., the rare xuToq v.'. In vv.^- ' 
there is obvious conflation of different texts, and otherwise numerous repe- 
titions and doublets exhibit themselves. An earlier stage of (& must have 
been akin to ?^, and that form may have been employed by 0. Indeed, it 
may be that, as in the following chapters, original (& was an abbreviated 
form. At the same time there is some evidence that the midrashic expan- 
sion took place in a Semitic form of text before translation. Bert., p. 130, 
boldly asserts that the original document was Aramaic; so also Eichhorn, 
Einl., 4, §617 end, JDMich., Orientalische BiUiothek, 4, 19/. Against, this 
view are arrayed DeWette, Einl., §258, Hav., p. xlvii seq., vLeng., p. cix. 
I note the following cases which argue to an Aramaic original: 

v.', h rikwc, X. T) ffeXTjvT) -^v ev auTw oixouv: unintelligible! My own sug- 
gestion for clearing this up has been anticipated by Bert, as = Aram. 
inns na nn nnoi b'dc, 'were revolving in it.' 


v.", elxev auT(p, exx6i|^aTe auTo: As the angel did not address the tree, 
Bert, suggests aurw = ^% 'in regard to it.' 

v.*', dtXXotwGsfat); T-?jg bp&aeoiq auxoO: x. op. auT. = hit, read as nn, so nvi 
= xpdaotj;!'; 2", etc. (Bousset, Rel. d. Jiid., 453, thinks of the phenomena 
of ecstasy developed here.) 

V.'*, TouTou<; T. Xdyouv; dYcixT)aov: Bert, notes the unusual use of iyaxav 
and suggests orig. am; I would compare similar use of anx in Heb., e.g., Am. 
4', Jer. 5". 

v.'", ?G)<; itpwf: as 6", = ina -[•;. 

v.'^*. xtivxa^ X. dyfoug auxoO: In this doxology we expect the praise of 
God's mercies; the original may have been Tii-'Dn, 'his mercies,' which was 
misread '''"'^"^PD, 'saints' ('n so occasionally in Pesh.). 

V.'*'', ev xw Xa(p £xp<ixT)as [is: i.e., the construction of \2^z' with :i. 


(i) 1-12. King Belshazzar made a great feast for his court. 
At the wine-drinking he sacrilegiously ordered the holy vessels 
of the House of God in Jerusalem to be fetched to the banquet- 
hall, and while using them the party made their heathen devo- 
tions to their gods. A mystical Hand appears and writes on the 
wall. In his panic the king summons all the wise men for the 
interpretation of the cryptic legend; they are unable to solve it. 
The queen then enters and reminds the king of Dan., Neb.'s 
Master Magian, and of his virtues. (2) 13-28. Dan. is brought 
in, the king graciously accosts him. Dan. recalls to him Neb.'s 
experience of exaltation and humiliation, a lesson Belsh. has 
ignored in his act of sacrilege. He proceeds to interpret the omi- 
nous script. (3) 29-c. 6, 1 (29-31). The sequel: Dan. is ac- 
corded the promised rewards, while in that very night Belsh. was 
slain and Darius the Mede succeeded to the throne. 

For the historical criticism of this story s. the Int., §19, e. 
The position there taken is that the story, while unhistorical, 
nevertheless contains indubitable reminiscences of actual his- 
tory. Against some comm., e.g., Hitz., Bev., Cha. (Dr. appears 
uncertain), Belsh. is not the type of the arrogant despot Anti- 
ochus Epiphanes; he does not appear as the destroyer of the 
Jewish religion, only as the typical profligate and frivolous mon- 
arch. With Mein., Behr., Mar., al., the story is devoid of refer- 
ence to Antiochus; it is doubtless far more ancient than the 2d 
cent. B.C. 


1-4. The feast. For the festival which was in progress when 
Cyrus took Babylon, s. Int., §19, e. There is nothing surprising 
in the alleged number of guests. Hav. gives examples: ace. to 
Ctesias (in Athenaeus, Deipn., iv, 10) the Pers. king fed 15,000 
men daily from his table; there was the brilliant international 
marriage festival celebrated by Alexander, when 10,000 guests 
were present (s. Niese, Griech. Gesch., i, 165/.); and a similar in- 
stance is cited for the last Ptolemy (Pliny, H. N., xxxiii, 47). For 
such royal feasts as pictured here and the drinking customs of 
the ancient civilizations the elder comm. have diligently col- 
lected the Classical allusions, for which s. especially Brisson, De 
regio Persarum principatu, ii, cap. cxxvi. The Bible has the 
parallel story of Xerxes' splendid feast, Est. i , the crucial point 
of which is the refusal of the proud Vashti to be presented be- 
fore the rout. Rawlinson {SGM 'Fifth Monarchy,' c. 3, notes 
2,A9 f-) has assembled the reff. from Athenaeus {Deipn., iv, 26) 
on the banqueting habits of the Pers. kings. For the drinking 
customs of the Persians s. ^Elian, Varia historia, xii, i, and of 
the Parthians, Athen. iv, 38. For the lasciviousness and drunk- 
enness of the Babylonians in Alexander's day s. Q. Curtius, v. i : 
"Babylonii maxime in uinum et quae ebrietatem sequuntur 
effusi sunt." Whether the royal women were also present on 
such occasions has been much debated. Ace. to Her., v, 18, both 
concubines and lawful wives were admitted to banquets: vofio<? 
earl rolcrt Hepcrrjcri^ eireav helirvov irporiOoiixeOa fie'^a^ Tore koI 
Ta9 7raXXa/ca9 koX Ta<; KOvpiSla^ <yvvatKa<i ead^eadai irapehpovi 
(n.b. the coincidences with terms of our story !) ; while Plutarch, 
Symp., i, I, and Macrobius, vii, i, say that concubines, not wives, 
were so permitted. The undignified manners of royal concubines 
in public are illustrated from the witty allusion in i Esd. 4^^^-. 
But royal banquets in fin de siecle ages have been much the same 
the world over, and it is unnecessary to press antiquarian details 
for or against the historicity of our story. 

1. Before the thousand: The expression is technical (cf. Hav., 
Pr.), and so the king particularly graced the company, facing 
the guests at his high table. Vice versa, the guests 'ate before' 
the king, Jer. 52^^ VLeng. cites Athenaeus, iv, 10, who records 
that the Pers. king generally dined in a separate hall, his mag- 
nates in another; but that on festal occasions he dined sitting 
at a separate table opposite his guests, who then might number 

5'-' 251 

not more than twelve. Bert.'s opinion that the ' drinking before ' 
them meant pledging them (propinare, zidrinken) has not been 
accepted. 2. At the tasting of the wine (Eng. VSS 'while he tasted 
the wine') : The phrase, if it is to be exactly defined, can best be 
understood as technical of banqueting customs, i.e., when the 
wine began to circulate after the meal. This Pers. habit is illus- 
trated by iElian, xii, i : l^era to ifiTrXrjOrivac TjOo^t}? ol TLepaai tm 
re otvQ) K. TOi? irpoaiToaecnv . . . aTroa-^oXcH^ovat^ and, ^Tv^e 
[ K.vpo<i] aiTO heiTTVOv cov^ koX "Kiveiv e/xeWe Kara rov rpoirov top 
irepaLKov. Ra., AEz. understand the phrase as 'in the humor 
(n^y 'counsel') of the wine'; so Jer., iam temulentus, followed by 
Pr., and by Dr. as 'under the influence of wine.' CBMich. eft. 
the Lat. phrases inter pocula, inter uina; Behr. paraphrases: 'als 
der Wein ihm besonders gut schmeckte.' The vessels of gold and 
silver . . . from the temple in Jerusalem, as the only tangible 
remains of Israel's ancient cult, were uniquely sacred to the 
Jewish mind; of. Is. 52", Ezr. i^^-, Bar. i^- *. The ref. connects 
with 1 2. The king must have lost his sense of decency to com- 
mit what is to the Oriental view a sacrilege even with the holy 
things of another religion; of. Amos's allusion to the profligates 
of his day, 6^. His wives (AV RVV, 'consorts' Dr., JV) and con- 
cubines : The first term is an honorable one; it is used, e.g., of 
Artaxerxes' queen, Neh. 2®; the other denotes the inferior class 
of harem women, as its etymology may possibly indicate. For 
the two classes of women in the royal harem cf. i Ki. 11^, Song 
6^ The usual Sem.word for 'queen' ("3^0) is used in v.^" appar- 
ently of the queen mother, (g om. all reference to the participa- 
tion of these women in the sacrilege. JDMich. erroneously 
brought a lascivious note into the scene, translating by false 
etymology, 'singers and dancers.' 4. They praised the gods of 
gold, etc. (cited Rev. g^", cf. Bar. 6^). Hav. thinks of some special 
religious festival and eft. the Pers. Sakae; but with vLeng. it is 
a common drinking-bout. The customary libations and appro- 
priate snatches of song were in celebration of the gods of wine 
and joy {cf. dEnv.). 

1. i?^V;?] So in this chap. exc. v.'", where the incorrect ■'?^'<;?, 
which latter spelling is continued in 7*, 8' (s. Bar at s'°); = Bel-lar-iisur. 
The name appears on a statue of a private man in Egypt 'aus assyri- 
scher Zeit' as TiSiD'^D, Eph., 3, 117. All VSS identify the name with 


Dan.'s surname, Belteshazzar, as BaXraaap, V Balthassar, & BeltlMsdr. 
Cod. A, which gave the unique Bapxaaap in the earher capp., after this 
V. reverts to BaXxaaap. — °0; "'?i'] This unusual, doubtless antique 
Aramaic use of 'S as 'feast,' for which we might expect nocd as in v.^" 
(c/. Est. i^ NPiyD na*],') is paralleled in Ecc. lo*' anS D''U'j?; also onS Sy 
BSir 34^^' 'at a feast.' — construes vv. ^''^ ^ together, and 19 as though 
hzphz, unusquisque secundum siiatn hihebat aetatem. — 2. o^is] The physi- 
cal mng. 'taste' only here in BAram. Mar., Gr. §48, notes that the 
infinitival sense is perceptible. — B oYvou auToiJ eveyxetv, error for 
0. Tou ev. — •'Jnd] In the papp., e.g., APA H, 1. 5, 'vessels of brass 
and iron.' — pnt:'''] Impf. continuing the infin. — i^O^^F] S. Lexx., and 
Haupt' Segal,' /5L 1916,322-324. & B correctly ' wives ' 1)5. xaXXaxaf. 
— i^DJD; ] S. Lexx. for proposed etymologies. Kon., Ewb., follows Hav. 
in an etymology from Arab, lahina, 'stink.' Haupt, I.e., 324-326, con- 
nects the word, as by interchange of d and /, with the theme dah, 'push 
away,' for which he finds support in !^Q1, 6", which ace. to many is 
identical with the present word. In APO pap. 53, 1. 5, appears njnS, 
but vs. Sachau, who suggested identification with our word, it is recog- 
nized that h there is prep, and njn = hanna, 'maid.' njhS is found in 
Targ. Onk. for hen and trj'^'j, e.g., Gen. 25', 35", and in Mand. in lists 
of evil spirits, e.g., Qolasta, xv, 5, Ginza R., 279^., which Lidz. arbi- 
trarily tr. 'Netzgeister,' Or. Studien Noldeke gewidmet, i, 541; rather it 
means succubae. — 3. 3MSS Ken. om. the v. by homoiotel. — X2m] + 
[ia xpuaa] v.a\ to: lipyupa = B, and this addition, NDD31, is approved 
by Kamp., Mar., Lohr. — ^p!iir\] g* U as sing., and Lu. B + 'Neb.' — 
n>3 it] This unessential item0&15om.,OrP (62) restores; it introduces 
the usual term for the temple, e.g., i^. — i"''!'^'':*] With prothetic vowel 
and internal i of the stative, as in Syr. eUi; cf. Nold., SG §176. — 4. At 
end of V. OrC (A 106 A al.) plus from (i, 'and the eternal God they 
blessed not who had the power over their spirit,' which was intruded 
into <S from v.-^ That OrC does not represent orig. is shown by use 
of (S's xvsu(jia vs. 0's itvoiQ at v.". Yet Jahn, Cha. accept the addition 
as authentic. 

5-9. The vision of the Hand and the Writing on the Wall; 
the king's panic. 5. Just then came forth fingers of a human 
hand and they were writing in front of the candelabrum upon the 
plaster of the palace wall. The royal table was doubtless set on 
a dais and against a wall, and that quarter of the hall was lit 
with a great candelabrum, the light of which was reflected on 
the plastered wall behind the royal seat. The v. gives details 
which, if we would understand them historically, may be visual- 
ized from the excavations at Babylon. In the Gewolbebau, the 

5^'^ 253 

assumed Hanging Gardens, was found a great hall, for the de- 
scription of which we may summarize Koldewey {Das wieder 
crstehende Babylon, c. 15, p. 103; Eng. tr., Excavations at Baby- 
lon). In the southern part of the area lies the largest room of 
the castle, the throne hall of the Babylonian kings. In every 
respect it is distinguished from all the other halls, and there can 
be no doubt that it was the chief royal audience chamber. "If 
one would localize anywhere the ill-fated banquet of Belsh., it 
could be found with greatest warranty in this enormous room," 
which is 17 m. wide by 52 long. In the centre of one of the long 
sides, opposite the entrance, is a niche, in which the throne must 
have stood. And the explorer notes that the walls were covered 
with white plaster, referring also to an earlier statement, p. 88, 
where it was remarked that " die Innenraume waren mit einem 
feinen, auf dickerem Gipsmortel aufgetragenen Putz versehen, 
der aus reinem Gips bestand." Earlier comm., e.g., dEnv., Pr., 
Dr., have adduced the evidence for such interior stucco work 
from the descriptions in Layard and Perrot. The word in v.'' 
translated by EW 'palm,' probably means the hand proper be- 
low the wrist as opposed to the lower arm, which also is often 
called 'hand.' 

6 . Then the king's color changed : The original word for ' color ' 
(EVV 'countenance') is 'sheen, brightness,' s. at 3^^ Cf. the 
Arab, phrase, tagayyara launuhu, found in Lammens, Riwdydt 
aWAgani, p. 100, 1. 14. For the 'loosening of the loins' as symp- 
tom of panic fear, cj. Is, 21^, Nah. 2", Eze. 21", Ps. 69^^, and for 
the 'knocking of the knees one against the other' Nah. 2". For 
corresponding expressions in the Classics s. Bert., Hav. 7. The 
various classes of wise men (s. at 2^) are summoned to interpret 
the mystic writing. A royal boon is promised to him who will 
read it: he shall be invested with the royal Purple and the 
Golden Necklace and shall have the official rank of 'Third' in 
the kingdom. Purple (so AVmg RV JV, 'scarlet' AV) was the 
royal color in antiquity; among the Persians, Est. 8^^, i Esd. 3^ 
Xen., Anab., i, 5, 8; the Medes, Xen., Cyrop., i, 3, 2; ii, 4, 6; for 
the Gr. period cf. 1 Mac. lo^*^, 14'*^ (Simon is accorded sole right 
to the purple), etc. The 'necklace of gold' is more than a 'sug- 
gestion' (Pr.) from the story of Joseph, Gen. 41^^ The golden 
necklace (the word used is of Pers. origin and passed into the 
Sem. dialects and the Gr., i.e., fiavca.Kr]';) was peculiarly a Pers. 


distinction; it was worn by Persians of rank, Anab., i, 5, 8; 8, 29; 
was presented by the king as a special compliment, ib., i, 2, 27; 
Her., iii, 20, ix, 80, i Esd. 3^ (where /J-aviciKi^'i as here); s. Bert., 
Hav., Dr. Ace. to Cyrop., xiii, 5, 18, the decoration could be 
worn only when presented by the king. Rawlinson, SGM ' Fifth 
Monarchy,' c. 5, n. 420, observes that this and other particulars 
of official insignia are confirmed by the Achaemenidan monu- 
ments. As to the title 'Third' (also w.^^- ^^) there is vast variety 
of opinion. The most common interpretations postulate for the 
second member of the triumvirate either (so earlier) the queen- 
mother or Nabonidus (for other views s. Note). It has been 
argued in Int., §19, e, that the latter is excluded by the whole 
tenor of the story, which regards Belsh. as absolute monarch; 
within the scope of the tale only the queen-mother can be ac- 
cepted, unless we would find in the term a faint reminiscence of 
the co-regency of Belsh. with his father, who, however, is said 
to be Neb. ( ! ). But see the extensive Note, which argues that 
the term is a true reminiscence of old Bab. officialdom, where 
the Akk. salM (= our word spelled both talti and faltd) was a 
high official title, = 'ThirdUng' or 'Triumvir,' similar in its use 
to the Heb. equivalent MUL 8. Then all the king's wise men were 
coming in, etc.: an apparent conflict with v.'', in which the king 
said to the wise men of Babylon, etc., a statement which supposes 
the presence of those notables at the banquet. Kran. assumes 
gratuitously a distinction between the three specified castes of 
v.'' and 'all the wise men' as here. Behr. supposes that 1Dt<, 
v.'^, means 'commanded,' not 'said,' and so Mar.; but this is 
forced. Cha., after Jahn, readily falls back on (g, which he holds 
gives 'a rational order of events,' as 'also supported by Josephus' 
( ! ) ; but (g's narrative concludes, v.^, with a more emphatic repe- 
tition than is found in i^ : ' and were coming in the enchanters,* 
etc.; i.e., (I had the same apparent confusion in his Sem. text 
as we find. The rather petty inconsequence may be understood 
as a case of prolepsis in v.^, or 'careless diction' (Zock.). But 
we may observe the force of the ppl., 'were coming in,' and the 
comprehensive 'all,' v.*; through these ominous hours they were 
filing in to make essay at the vain enterprise. 9. Their failure 
cast the king and his magnates as well into the greater perplexity. 

5. 1|1DJ Kt., ^\l^} Kr.] The same variation appears in the other cases 
of the 3d sing, fem.: 7^- -°. Kau., §23, 2, Bev., Behr. hold that the dis- 

5'-' 255 

tinction made by M (-d vs. -u) is secondary and due to assimilation to 
the Targ. form in -a. Palm, uses the form in -il for both genders; there 
are no pertinent cases in the papp. But 0's rendering of "ho: 7-° as 
hSdj ppl. proves that the latter was once Kt. The fern, in -a is found 
in EAram., WAram., and Eth., and occasionally in Heb. (s. Peters, 
Hebraica, 3, iii; GK §44, m). The rdg. of ims Ken., jpcj = ppl. is not, 
with Houbigant, Bert., to be preferred; the frequent order of perf., ppl. is 
idiomatically followed. — ^'^f"!^^^] Ace. to many a foreign, Aryan word, 
s. Lexx., Behr., Pr., also Tisdall, JQR 2 366 (= ni + Avestan barej, 
'shine')- Barth, ZA 2 117, led the way in regarding it as Sem. by diag- 
nosing w as = rn by nasal dissimilation before b {cf. some additional 
notes on this subject by the writer in JAOS 43, 50). Torrey, Notes, I, 
275 {cf. II, 232), argues for composition from (Eth.) i3j and ncss = 
'fire-stand,' but with little probability. I have for some time derived 
the word from m3 'be clear, bright,' and as from the Safel stem with 
metathesis of consonants. But, as Dr. W. F. Albright has informed me, 
Halevy long ago hit upon the same root with a probably better analysis: 
mabrart > nabrart > nabralt > nabrast, which fully clears up the deriva- 
tion. Aq.'s tr. here is cited in Yoma 410, DiccS SapS = 0. — «T^] = 
Heb. "^^ Is. 27'. For discussion of origin s. Lexx.; Haupt connects with 
Akk. kir 'pitch,' s. Pr., p. 227. — Ds] ^ tr. by the identical word pasta, 
and so 'd is used in Rabb. See Bev.'s note and his explanation that "the 
king saw the hollow of the hand " ; but this were hardly possible. Kon., 
Hwb., assuming a rt. 'stretch out,' interprets it as of 'the finger-tips.' 
But Jastrow, Diet., s.v., defines the word as 'the hand from the v.-rist 
to the tips of the fingers,' and so AEz. here interprets, 'a severed hand,' 
i.e., without a body; so also Hitz. and Torrey. Similarly = dtaxpayd- 
Xous = "& articulos. BDB is to be supplemented {cf. GB) by reference to 
0'>D0 njn^, Gen. 37', where 'a means the hands and feet, sc. a garment 
reaching to the wrists and ankles; also, with Maurer, cf. O'??? "'?, Eze. 
47', 'water reaching to the ankles.' — 6. ndSc] For the casus pendens 
cf. v.'". — ^nin] See at 2"; for the pi. here cf. Heb. a^JD. (g Spaaiq, as 
though ■'ni'n, hence "& fades, z.n6. so EVV 'countenance.' — ''^^^'] But 
V.' ^niSy \>iv vnin (the phrase but with Etpaal v.", 7^'). Accordingly 
read here ''J'f (-|- ''niSy"?); the form is a scribal conflation with that 
in V.'. The suff. for the indirect obj. is hardly possible; for Heb. 
exx. s. GK §1 1 7, X. The use is frequent in SArab., and Pr. cites apparent 
parallels in Akk. Str., §6, p, accepts the text; per contra Nold. in his 
review, LCB 1896, no. 9. — nsnn] For identity of 'n with Heb. I'Sn, 
Syr. hass, s. GB s.v. v'?n. For similar use of the sing. vs. the pi. of the 
Heb. cf. Targ. Dt. 3312.— ni-?F?] Ethpeel is to be expected, so Bev., 
but Ethpaal in this sense also in Syr. (Behr.).— J^C^^I^f, Mich, '^^i^] = 
Arab, rukbat ; for prothetic vowel s. Kau., §60, i. It is preferable with 
GB, p. 117, to postulate two rts., I brk = rkb, 'knee, ride,' and II brk 
{cf. Akk. and SArab. krb), 'bless,' as against BDB and Kon., Hwb. 


7. '^tH?] See Kau., §46, 3, b; the Haf. with nasal dissimilation 2^^ 4'. 
— mp^] As v/'?, so v.*s; but as rt. Nip vv.s- ". — ^IP^] = OrPC Lu. 
& B; (B 4- 5MSs) as nIu-d = 4MSS Ken.— njuin] = 2 Ch. 2\ Palm., 
Syr., Arab.; Heb. otherwise jdjix. — ndj^dh Kt., ^^'\t^ Kr., Bar, Str.; 
WJicn Gin., Kit.; ndudh Mich.; ndjidh M^; these with Kr. as 
above; the Ktib maintained strictly throughout] Levy, Bev., followed 
by Andreas in Mar.'s Gloss., as < MPers. *hamydnak, diminutive of 
hamydn, 'girdle,' with which cf. Bar's Kt. Tisdall, JQR 4, 98, insists 
that Pers. hamydn is from Arab, himydn (rt. = 'fall '), mng. 'loin-cloth,' 
etc., and derives the word from ham + maini, 'necklet,' i.e., 'collection 
of necklets'; the Targ. form 1''^.? is then from the unprefi.xed noun. 
But hemydn is found in Talm. and Mand. The variants in fH's tradi- 
tion represent different forms of the imported word, with which cf. Syr. 
hamnikd, Gr. pLavt3:/.T];;, used here. The Targ. N3>:2 tr. "^''?1, Gen. 
41^2, of Joseph's necklace. — '^"i'.^l^" ] Spelled as in Heb. In a note in JAOS 
1926, 58, the writer has explained the spelling as a development from 
^aur (= Syr.) > sauuar > sau'ar.—'r}\^] = ^^\^ vv.«- "; = Akk. laM 
Kialsdi (cf. GB, Kon., Hit'b.), noun of relation from sal'^ii, 'third,' s. 
Del., Hwb., S.V., and Gr., p. 207. The word appears in two classes of 
references, (i) In the one, for citations of which I am indebted to 
Prof. R. P. Dougherty, we have the term ahu Salsa, e.g., Streck, Assur- 
banipal, Rm. Ill, 48-49 (vol. 2, p. 26), Tammarilu ahuhi ialia-a. *T. 
his brother of third degree'; similarly KB 4, p. 88 of sons; in these cases 
it is brother or son 'number 3 ' in the family. (2) In the other class the 
term is official. The reff . have been conveniently collated by Klauber in 
his 'Assyrisches Beamtentum' in Leipziger Sem. Stiidien, 5, iii ff. He 
presents a category of Salsu ( = SalH) officials of various degrees : a Ja/Jw 
Ja iarri, SalSu dannu mar Sarri, etc. The parallel of Heb. ^ ; ^' (long ago 
observed by Jer.) at once suggests itself, in its mng. of a high royal officer, 
e.g., Ex. 14', I Ki. 9^^ Eze. 15'^ etc., for which Haupt, BA 4, 583^., dem- 
onstrates the mng. of ' the third ' in the chariot, the 6xXog)6po<;, armiger 
(s. GB s.v. for further reff.). We are dealing here, then, with a customary 
official title, the numerical denotation of which has been lost. ^ has 
preserved the two Akk. case-forms of the word, taltd and talti, by true 
reminiscence; cf. i'?ij = iSu, etc., s. Note at 2^. N.b. that inSn is not 
emph. but abs., hence not 'the third ruler,' so AV RVV, but rather 
'one of three,' with JV, and we might translate 'Thirdling'; and 
NnVn taiSif, v.^', is the same although on its surface it might mean 'ruler 
of the third.' In a word Dan. was appointed a high dignitary in the 
kingdom, with a title which had lost its original significance, like 'tet- 
rarch,' or 'chamberlain' and 'knight' in English. The recognition of 
this Akk. origin accordingly antiquates Kau.'s notion (§65, i, Anm. 3) 
of 'an abnormal stat. emph. to "I?;'?,' as also the various attempts to 
rectify the pronunciation, e.g., Behr., Kamp., Mar., Cha. Torrey, 

5"-'^ 257 

Notes, II, 232, thinks that the author meant '»'?'?'■? in all the three pas- 
sages, i.e., as 'third' ruler (so zgkoc), with which was combined the 
notion of the 'ruler of the third part' (as C6 understands the phrase). 
The above explanation does away with the prevailing interpretation 
that Dan. was the third ruler after the king, so AV, RV, Hipp., iii, 15 
lie'. 6p6vq) TpfTCj), and one of Jer.'s alternate views, uel tertius post me; 
uel unus ex tribus principibus, quos alibi ■zgis-z&zxc; legimns {i.e., the 
current translation in <K for f'Sa'). And accordingly it disposes with 
speculation as to the person of 'the second' ruler. According to the 
theories Dan. would have been third to the king and his wife, or his 
son (Geier, dEnv.); or to the king and his vizier (JDMich., CBMich., 
Bert.) ; or to the king and the queen-mother, which to the writer's mind 
is the only reasonable alternative. For the view that the two in prece- 
dence were Nabonidus and 'the crown prince' Belshazzar, s. Int., §19, 
e. The oldest interpretation, that of <S, is an erroneous paraphrase, 
'there shall be given him authority of the third part '; so practically Sa., 
Ra., AEz., Jeph. Zock. cfl. the triumvirate appointed by Darius, 6', 
and Mar. recalls ol rpsts ixsYtaTotves i Esd. 3^ In Test. Jos. 13* 
Potiphar is 'third in rank with Pharaoh'; if not dependent upon our 
passage, the term may corroborate the above interpretation. — N.m^'^ca] 
© ;H as \-i-; so IMS Ken.— 3. no'^c] mss Ken. and de R. S32; this rdg., 
as noted by Bar, was followed by Levi b. Gerson. — ^T'f'?] So edd. (= &) 
exc. Mich. "^IP^, M^ ^"X^^ (= 6 1); Bar claims latter as Oriental, but 
this is denied by Gin., Int., 237.-9. nv^] For the adv. before the vb. 
cf. 6i=- "*; for the same use in Syr. s. Nold., SG §245.— ■'Hi'-;] For the 
phrase cj. Dieterici's text of Thier u. Mensch, p. 51 ai inf., rakka kalbuhu 
'alaihi.—]-'ViT<Z'z] = (& £y.aux(I)VTo v.«, i.e., rdg. l^nanirc, cf. 1 Ch. 
16" (Blud., p. 149). 

10-12. The queen's plea that Dan. be summoned. Since Jos. 
this lady has generally been identified with the queen-mother; 
some comm., e.g., Origen (ace. to Jer.), Levi b. Gerson, lacchi- 
des, by composition with the Biblical datum in 2 Ki. 25", make 
her Evil-merodach's wife and so mother of Belsh., and similarly 
the marg. variant in AV 'grandfather' for 'father,' vv.^- "; but 
most the widow of Neb. {i.e., Nitocris, so Grot.), and so the 
mother, or grandmother, of Belsh.; so Jos., Jeph., AEz. and most 
modern comm. The narrator evidently ignores Evil-merodach 
and regards Neb. and 'the queen' as the parents of Belsh. The 
bald title 'queen' suggests prima facie Belsh. 's chief consort, and 
so interpret Bert., p. 367, Jahn; this position is as old as Por- 
phyry, whom Jer. cites and shrewdly answers: "Euigilet ergo 


Porphyrius, qui earn Balthasaris somniatur uxorem et illudit plus 
scire quam maritum." Also the lady's masterful appearance on 
the scene betokens rather the queen-mother than the consort. 
In the one case where a queen-consort is mentioned in the post- 
exilic history, she is called i^Jl'j, Neh, 2^, the word used above, 

T •■ 

v.^ In the O.T. the queen-mother bore the title 'Mistress,' 
H'T'iil I Ki. 15", etc.; the book of Kings relates several episodes 

illustrating her prime importance in the administration. Pr., 
citing Bab. letters from the king to the queen-mother (Del., BA 
I, 187 /.), calls attention to their respectful tone, and for her 
exalted position s. Meissner, Bab. u. Ass., i, 74. We learn still 
more definitely from Classical reff. of the dominant position of 
the queen-mother in the Pers. court. Says Rawlinson, SGM 
'Fifth Monarchy,' c. 3: "The mother of the reigning prince, if 
she outlived his father, held a position at the Court of her son 
beyond that even of his Chief Wife"; and he cites, n. 393, from 
Arrian, Exp. Alex., ii, 12, a passage indicating that the queen- 
mother might properly hold the title of queen. Cf. the malign 
power exercised by Parysatis, the queen-mother in Ochus' reign 
{ih., c. 7). That the queen came in of her own accord with ||, 
as against (^, which has her summoned by the king, is histori- 
cally reasonable, especially if we have here a tradition of Nitocris. 
11. There is a man, etc.: Comm. {e.g., Hav., Keil, dEnv.) seek 
for reasons why Dan. did not officially appear at first. But the 
story follows dramatic necessity as in c. 4 (s. at 4^), with the 
additional reason of the frivolity of the new and abandoned 
regime. In place of the usual translation of the grammatical pi. 
'gods,' interpret as sing., 'Deity'; s. at 2^^. For 'light' EVV, 
translate the abstract noun of the original -I^TIJ by 'illumina- 
tion'; © tr. by a technical philosophical term, <yprj'yGpr]cn<; (s. 
Note). The characterization of Dan. repeats Neb.'s words to 
him in 4^ For Dan.'s position under Neb. as Master Magician, 
s. at 2^*. At the end of the v. appears a superfluous ' thy father 
the king,' an unnecessary repetition, disguised in )| and EVV. 
12. The first part of the v., punctuated by the edd. of the VSS, 
EVV, GV, most comm., with a full stop, reads like a superfluous 
repetition of v."; but if read as protasis to v.'^, with dEnv., Bev., 
it is in place: Since (H quia) that extraordinary illumination was 
actually exhibited in him, now (tJ?D) lei Dan. be called. Of the 

5''-'' 259 

three phases of his art dream-interpretation has been exempli- 
fied in c. 2. For the solution (EVV 'showing,' 'declaring') of 
riddles (so JV, 'hard sentences' AV, 'dark sentences' RV) as a 
skilled specialty of the royal councillor we have the classic ex- 
ample in Ahikar, the sage vizier of the Ass. kings, who, ace. to 
the Syr. version of his story, distinguished himself in riddle con- 
tests between his royal master and the king of Egypt; cf. BSira 
at length, c. 39. The earliest case of such royal jousts of wits is 
found in the story of the queen of Sheba. As the third specialty 
is named, literally, the loosing of knots (so JV; AV RV dissolving 
of doubts). The second noun is common in magic for the knots 
tied by the sorcerer, which sympathetically bound the victim 
and which had to be untied by counter-magic; it is in this sense 
(probably that of 0, (rvvSea-fiovi = If ligatorum, and accordingly 
(H om. the item) that Bev., Cha. would interpret the term. But, 
with Mar., "an Zauberei denkt der Verfasser kaum," and it is 
preferable with him. Dr., al., to interpret after Talm. and Syr. 
usage as of 'problems, difficulties.' The repetition of the phrase 
in v.^^ indicates that the mystery of the supernatural script fell 
into this category. At the end of her statement the queen recalls 
Dan.'s official surname, as it were, in personal reminiscence of 

10. Nna'ro] For the emphatic position, denoting change of subject, 
cf. nsSd v.«.— SapS] = Ezr. 4»«.— ^J>!] So JKb, Mich., Str., Kit.; "^ri, 
Bar, Gin.; s. on rnn 2'^— N'ns'D n^j] Cf. Jer. 168, Ecc. 7=.— nnps] See 
on '^r),n'7'^ 2^ where the other cases are cited. But in Peal we expect a 
form similar to '^P.??. 2'^, hence M may be reminiscent of an orig. ppl. 
form, '^")'?'t, especially after analogy of "'?^"l ^Yi. This elder form of 
fem. ppl., regular in Heb., is otherwise not found in Aram.; however, 
^•117? 7' is so understood by Or^ (= Aq.?), prob. with right, and there 
is no intrinsic objection to the form. — iiS.-i3\ uns"] For these true 
juss. forms s. on iSnai 4'^ — The v. is abbreviated in 0. HT regina autem 
pro re quae accideret regi, which Hav. follows, but the pi. opposes (Hitz.). 
11. |■'•L^'n|•7 i^hSn] = 'holy Deity,' cf. note on 2". Jer. remarks: "prae- 
tor Sym., qui chaldaicum ueritatem sequutus est, caeteri spiritum Dei 
interpretati sunt." ignored ri^np, wh. OrP-c^ Lu. supplied, but con- 
strued (or by scribal error?) after (S, with 'spirit,' xvsujxo: aytov; the 
same change in 4'- ^ — i"i'''?J] A katttl formation, as Behr. notes, vs. 
Kau.; §16, 5; it is abstract form from the Kt. Ni-inj 2'^, q.v. tr. by 
YpiQYop-natq; cf. Theodt.'s paraphrase -f) xf,? i^ux^"^ v^tj^tc;. For 0's tr. my 


friend Prof. W. R. Newbold has kindly given me an extensive note, 
which I can only summarize. "This use of yprjfipriai.c, goes back to 
the Aristotelian tradition," in which eypi^jopcic; was "exactly equiva- 
lent to our 'consciousness,'" and so it is an attribute of God as 'con- 
tinuously, eternally conscious ' ; the notion was adopted by Gnosticism, 
e.g., the divine nature of man is i'iJxvo? e^ dtuxvou, Poemandres, §15. 
He sums up that "takes n>nj as meaning, not supernatural illumina- 
tion, but full possession of one's intellectual faculties." — ''^7;?"^'] A 
noun form unique in BAram.; for the formation in -an attached to fem. 
stem cf. ''J??''?? 7^ and s. Nold., SG §129, and for forms in -dnHtd §138; 
similar nouns in -tdnuld are cited by Duval, GS §255. — priSs naon^] 
The VSS, exc. &, ignore. — x^Sd ii3n] Lu. & om.; 11 pater, inqiiam, 
tuns, rex, which is followed by EVV, throwing the words back so as 
to follow 'king Neb. thy father.' The repeated subject is unnecessary 
and is to be elided with Lohr, Mar., Cha. Defence of it can hardly be 
made as an anacoluthon (Kau., §97, 2), or as emphatic (Pr.); the posi- 
tion of the subject may have floated between the beginning and end 
of the sentence. — 12. unSsa'] As Kau., p. 65, n. i, observes, this is 
absolute and cannot be treated as const, with what follows, vs. some 
comm., e.g., CBMich., Rosen., Hav., vLeng.— ^I'f? • • • i^ljq^ ■ • • "^r?'?] 
As the second term is an infinitival noun and nib' is used otherwise 
only in Peal (v.^^), M must be wrong in accenting the other two 
nouns as ppls. Accordingly point them "^t'??' ^Tf? (2MSS Bar, Str. *^Tf ?), 
with Bert., Kau. I.e., Kamp., Mar., Lohr, and all recent comm. The 
three terms constitute a parenthesis, the proper gramm. subjects, nn 
etc., being resumed in nnDncn, which is construed in attraction to the 
leading subject nn. This is the interpretation of U. But M's tradition 
of the ppls. is very ancient, being found in 0, followed by g». found 
itself compelled accordingly to manipulate the sentence extensively. — 
rirnx] Afel inf. of nin; for -at cf. n^nn Ezr. 4-, also in const.; there 
is no reason, with Mar., Gr. §47, c, to demand in these two cases the 
usual ending -ut, which is historically secondary; cf. Torrey, Ezra 
Studies, 165 /. The papp. show other varieties of the infs. of derived 
stems; s. Sachau, APO p. 270, col. 2. Similar nouns are found in Heb., 
GK §85, c. g- tr. by 'dhed, 'riddling [riddles].'— ITn!:*,] Against the 
traditional view of derivation from a rt. nin (so BDB, pp. 295, 1092, also 
Kon., Hwh.) is to be accepted Lagarde's identification (anticipated, ace. 
to CBMich., by Cocceius) with Syr. ^iihdd, rt. inx; hence Heb. '"'T" = 
Aram, n-i^hn, that which is 'held in' or 'fast.' So Targ. f<iq?< 'bolt' 
(Behr.), and cf. use of rnx Neh. 7' of 'fastening' the gates. See La- 
garde, Anmerkungen z. d. griech. Uehersetzung d. Proverhien, 73, Bev., 
Kau., Aramaismen, p. 30, GB s.v. hebr. ^T^. The word, typical of the 
Aramaic wisdom, was early imported into Heb. (e.g., Ju. 14'^), but with- 
out identification with the native rt. rnx. Note pnx 'riddles' in APO 

5"-2^ 261 

pap. 54, 1. 5, s. OLZ 191 2, 535, and cf. Cowley, AP ad loc; also cf. an 
interpretation by ® at 12*. — PTfil] = 'knots.' For its use as a magical 
term in Syria and Arabia, s. Bev. and Mar., Gloss, s.v.; the word occurs 
also in the magical bowls, s. my Aram. Incant. Texts, 88, along with 
'''\p''}}. But preferable {v. sup.) is the mng. 'difficulty' or 'problem'; 
Dr. eft. Talm., Yebam. 6ia, loyb, also the Syr. use, PSmith, col. 3591. 
Hav. aptly cites Seneca, Oedip., loi /., "Nodosa sortis uerba et im- 
plexos dolos Ac triste carmen alitis solui ferae." — ^T^^^] MSS also NTJ'fj. 
OrP Lu.B'B = M;Q Orc as ^T-'s. 

13-28. Dan.'s audience with the king. 13-16. The king gra- 
ciously accosts him as one he had not known (vs. 8"), Thou art 
Daniel then ? — although he had heard of him. His recognition of 
Dan. as one of the exiles of Judah, v.^^, is, as it were, a personal 
reminiscence of 2^^, and dramatically precedes Dan.'s denuncia- 
tion of the royal oblivion of the episode of c. 2. The / of v.^« is 
emphatic, of the royal ego. 17-28. Dan.'s response. In 17-21 
after refusing the royal gifts but promising to read the Writing, 
Dan. utters the conclusive indictment of the royal frivolity and 
sacrilege. It is balanced in two parts: (i) 17^., Thou, king — 
the Highest God gave thy father kingship, etc., following with the 
description of Neb.'s acme of glory and its reversal to the depth 
of beastlike degradation, until he knew that the Highest is potent 
in the kingdom of man. And {i)^^,^., And thou his son, didst not 
humble thy heart, although thou knewest all this. There is no finer 
example of the preacher's diction in the Bible than this stern 
and inexorable condemnation. Compare Nathan's indictment 
of his royal master, i Sam. 12. In this case, unlike that of 
David or Neb., neither pardon nor respite is offered to the light- 
minded monarch, for he had known. 23. The realistic picture 
of the sacrilege in v.^ is intensified by the spiritual contrast 
drawn between the gods of earthly material, which see not nor 
hear nor know {cf. Dt. 4^*, Ps. ii5'*^-, 12>S^^^'j Rev. g^°), which 
were praised in that orgy, and the God in whose hand is thy life- 
breath and whose are all thy ways. Bev. well renders the last 
word by 'destinies'; cf. Jer. 10-^, 'I know that the way of man 
is not his own, it is not of man as he walks to direct his steps.' 

24. Then is temporal, as vLeng. insists, referring to the mo- 
ment of v.^^, rather than causal with ©, Sta tovto^ and some 
comm. The seer solemnly repeats the details of the vision. It 
appears that the inscription was left upon the wall. 25. We 


learn at last what the Writing was ; it is presented as ment men^ 
tekel Ufarstn. But as earlier Bert, and more recently Peters {JBL 
1896, 114-117) and Torrey [Notes, I, 276-280) have insisted, 
the actual wording of the original epigraph is the three words 
which alone are interpreted in the exposition w.^^-^^: NiD, ^pil, 

D"l3 mene tekel peres. And that this was the original text in 
V.2S is corroborated by 8 with its fiavrj Oe/ceX (^ape?, and by B 
mane thecel phares. The repeated mene and the pi. form with 
conj., H-parstn, of the present text are then secondary and do 
not primarily concern us. Further, as Torrey rightly insists, M,s 
tradition of the vocalization of the terms is corroborated by 
(the swa vowel of the first radical being indifferently transliter- 
ated by a or e, the second vowel consistently by e) ; this tradition 
can be carried back to the summary at the head of the chap, in 
(g, which was known to Jos. {AJ x, 11, 3). The words are nomi- 
nal forms from the respective roots, and were so understood by 
Jos., who renders them by apid/xo'i^ a-Ta6/x6<i^ KXacrfxa^ in which 
he is followed by Jer. in his comm. They are interpreted by 
passive vbs. in w.""-*, and so in (^ and 0. Ace. to Torrey: " they 
were vocalized uniformly, after the pattern of the simplest 
Aram, noun-form qetel; the most natural form for the narrator 
to choose, if he wished them to be non-committal"; similarly 
Peters. The first point in the story is that they were read, and 
there is preserved the tradition of their vocalization, which 
vocalization left them abstract, ambiguous. As for their inter- 
pretation Torrey's axiom (p. 277) can hardly be disputed: "the 
man who wrote this tale must be supposed to have known what 
the solution was." And indeed the tradition of the interpreta- 
tion is the same in ^ and (g 0. The words are severally trans- 
lated as pass, ppls., to be translated, numbered, weighed, divided. 
For the first item numbered there is given the exegesis: God has 
NUMBERED thy kingdom and transferred it. Involved in the term 
numbered is the idea of fate and of the destined number of days 
which have run their course; cf. Ps. go^^, and the mng. of the 
practically same form in Heb., iJD Is. 65" = Arab, maniye, 

'fate.' Again: Weighed art thou in scales and found wanting. 
For the divine weighing of human conduct cf. Job 31*, Enoch 
41^ (with reminiscence of this passage), also Ps. 62*, Prov. 16^, 
21^, 24^2^ etc. And finally: Thy kingdom is divided (perisa) and 

513-28 263 

giveti to the Medes and Persians (paras). Here a balanced phrase 
is obtained by finding a double paranomasia in the mystic word, 
i.e., division and Persia. Were these ominous words first assem- 
bled and applied by our narrator; or did he take them from 
some source and adapt them to his interpretation (so Bev.) ? It 
is to be noted that the play of words gives 'Persia,' not 'Media,' 
despite the fact that in immediate sequence it is Darius the 
Mede who destroys the kingdom; the enigma is then based on 
the correct historical tradition of Cyrus' conquest. (Kran. 
notes that a play upon ''"FD 'Media' could have been found in 
TTD 'measure,' equally ominous with the other words.) The 
terms may have been actual language of the counting-house or 
of the law, used of the settling of a bargain, winding up a con- 
tract, settling a bankrupt's affairs, or the like. 

The above obvious interpretation of the text has been contra- 
dicted by an ingenious theory first advanced by Clermont- 
Ganneau in J A 1886, pp. 36^. (= his Recueil d'archeologie, 1, 
136-159), and Hebraica, 1887, 87 jf., followed by Nold., ZA i, 
414 ff. {cf. G. Hoffmann, i5., 2, 45^.) and generally accepted, e.g., 
by Bev., Pr. (s. also his dissertation, Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin, 
Johns Hopkins, 1893), Haupt (s. note in Kamp.), Dr., Mar. 
Cha., who gives a good summary of the different views, is uncer- 
tain. Ace. to this view we would have a series of money values: 
the SilD = Heb. "JIS, Gr. f^va, i.e., the mina, or Bab. talent; tekel 

V T 

would be the correct Aram, equivalent for sekel; while the dis- 
covery of the word ti^'^S on an Ass. weight as equal to a half- 
mina (s. Clerm.-Gann.), which mng. D"l3 has in the Talmud, 
appeared to clinch the discovery. Various modifications have 
been suggested by Haupt, Hoffmann, Mar. (the latter regarding 
parsin as a dual). Behr., Peters, Torrey stoutly refused to ac- 
cept this new interpretation, the latter regarding it as ' untenable 
and even absurd.' Of Torrey's two arguments against the dis- 
covery of money values, that which holds that hp'^, not ^pfl, 
was used in the Aram, world must be modified by the discovery 
of ^pn = b'p"^ in one case in the papp. {APO pap. 28, 1. 5); as 
for the other, that the half-mina should be vocalized perds, en- 
tailing correction of the well-authenticated D^3, it must be 

acknowledged we have only Talm. tradition for the vocalization 
of that word, the corresponding word in Syr. mng. something 


different, (TtTo/j,eTptov^ Pesh. Lu. i2*\ Behr. well points out 
that there is no explanation of the illogical order mina, shekel, 
half-mina. The phenomenon of the writing Hand is of course 
meant as a miracle. But the reason why the script could not be 
forthwith read has naturally puzzled many comm. Heng., p. 
122, held that the script was such as could be read only through 
divine inspiration. Some Jewish comm. have suggested an Ath- 
bash method of writing, or supposed that the letters were written 
in some form of anagram (s. dEnv., p. 417) — of course on the 
theory that the Heb. alphabet is implied. Others, e.g., Grot., 
Prideaux, have suggested some strange script. At the same time 
the story may not mean more than that the reading, i.e., intelli- 
gent pronunciation (= kre) of the consonants forming the in- 
scription (= kttb) was meant, and then with that the interpre- 
tation. Similarly ambiguous was Isaiah's proffered enigma, 
Maher-^alal-has-haz Is. 8^. 

13. 'ji nnjs] An interrogative exclamation; for omission of particle 
n cf. GK §150, a. b. In recognition of the interrogation Q has the unique 
plus at end of v., xal elxev, va\ ^aaiXsG, xal eliiev. — ''^^] With mil'el 
accent. The procession of accent appears which culminates in Syr. in 
loss of f (= db); in JAram. this form became '^^^^ (on which s. Duval, 
GS, p. 88) = N.T. dppa, s. Dalm., Gr. p. 90, n; cf. Behr.— 14. phSn] 
MSB Ken., de R. + pu'np = & A; Q Lu. + aytov. — 15. ^''>\J] Kau., 
§46, 3, c, understands — here and in i''? v.", as «J; so M understood it, 
but orig. Aram. = hu"a!u. — ^jn>ninS] For resolution of impf. into inf. 
s. at 2'«.— 16. ^D^7\ Kt., '"?/' ELr.] See at 2"'.— 17. p''^'' 1^1 = 'remain 
thine'; for this use of Nin in Syr., e.g., Pesh. Jn. 1*°; similarly .■^^^ in 
Heb., s. BDB s.v. iii. So OrC gaxw auv aot.— IT:^;?.'] = ^?\V 2', 
q.v.; T. Swpsdv ttj.; oly.iaq aou, i.e., analyzing as two nouns = & 
inij -ip'N = K dona dotnus tuae. — 18. n.-i:N] attaches to v.'' as aoi. 
— 'ji NmsSc] C/. 4^'".— 19. 'ji a-'zzy Sd] CJ.t,^. — x^r^'Si] ©asyndeton. 
— N3S Nin n] For n as indef. relative cf. 2", Ezr. 7". N.b. interchange 
of nin and nvi in this v. — ^C"?, 7MSS Ken. nni:] So edd., i.e., Afel ppl. 
of n^n, exc. Mich, ^'i!?? (s. Bar, Gin.) = JflB, ix., ppl. of xnc. The latter 
interpretation in 0, eTUTcirsv = B perctitiehat. But c (= Or^?) eawt^s 
= &; and so Sa., Ra., Montanus, Grot, and moderns. The vb. is strictly 
•;tr;, cf. Mar., Gr. §65, b, Haupt in Kamp., and for the Syr. s. Nold., SG 
§183; Kau. treats it under sv/S, §47. — 20. o"!] Treated by Kau., §45, 
3, I, Torrey, Notes, 276 (eft. n^c'y 6*, etc.), as pass, ppl.; but rather with 
Bev., Str., Mar., GB it is stative form in i, cf. Syr. mil, Heb. ^^, and s. 
Nold., MG §167. Cf 13^^ =■) Dt. 8'S etc.—^^:^^^] = OrC Lu.; 4iiss 

513-28 ,65 

Ken. Ni-nsSn = 0.— "^i";^] Also mss Nip>, = 0; Lu. & B as '"^".i"", and 
so Kamp., Mar., Lohr. — 21. mc' Kt., '^^^^' Kr.] The latter, as impers. pi., 
preferred by Kau., §47, g, 3, Bev., Kamp., Mar.; the former, ^W, by 
Behr., Pr., and so Peil {cf. iooQ-q). The combination Dy Nvi' is found in 
Syr., Pesh. Jn. 5'^ and cf. ay h'^'m, Ps. 28^ — N'm;'] smss Ken. Nmy, 
i.e., 'flocks,' preferred by Pr. after JBMich. But the expression is hy- 
perbolic and is consonant with the snj nrn 4-. For the wild ass cf. 
Job 39^ "•, Gen. 16'-. — J'1'] yvw, i.e., as impf. (then yiJ^, cf. 4»- ^2. — 

22. nWn] mss cited by Str., ^b nSijir-n. but all odd. /«/• 't""^'; s. on 
r2r\-' 2''. — n Sap Sa] In the exceptional mng. 'although'; s. at 2'. — 

23. nccnnn] For the stem s. on DDintt'N 41s.— '>''?;n] g ^nd A (?) V 
106 Lu. al. ijvsYxai;, al. T^veyxav. — ^DDtt'j] 'J = 'breath,' (8 TCveOfia, 
TcvoT); as physical, e.g., Gen. 2', Is. 2^-; secondarily of the human spirit, 
e.g., Pr. 20" (parallel to nn), Job 32'. For the context cf. 'the God of 
the spirits of all flesh,' Nu. 16^^, and 'the Lord of spirits,' Enoch 47* (s. 
Cha.'s note thereon). N.b. the frequent word attributed to Mohammed 
in the Traditions, 'by Him in whose hand my spirit (nafs) is.' — ^1!] 
Construed properly by M with preceding, = (n implied) 'his.' 
treats it, au-rdv, as object of the following vb., and so Kau., §84, i, 

24. a'K*"}] = 'inscribed'; cf. 6^«- of a signature, and 10=1.— 25. Jer. 
positively states: "tria tantum uerba in pariete scriptum signauerat: 
mane, thecel, pharas." The repeated ^^.? may have arisen from the 
repetition in v.-^. g> vocalizes here mene moid. The spelling nj:: distin- 
guishes the word from njc, the universal spelling of 'talent' in OAram. 
For t:nfl 'half-talent,' identified in Clerm.-Ganneau's theory with our 
D-\o, s. CIS ii, no. 10. PsSa. notes here one of the mngs. of did as ^2 mina. 
Both Sachau's and Sayce-Cowley's papp. present D-13 in the sense 
of 'share,' hence probably 'allowance' or 'salary'; in JAram., apart 
from the sense of ^ mina it means a 'portion.' The word also occurs 
in the Panammu Inscr., 1. 6 (Lidz., NE p. 442), as a grain measure = 
Syr. perdsd a-.TotxlTptov (?). The pi. of the text may be due to an 
assumed division between the Medes and Persians, as Bert, suggests. 
It has been constantly interpreted as at once a pi. ppl., ditddentes , and 
the pi. of ^Difl, 'Persians'; in either case the first vowel should be a. — 
26. nr:Vtt'n] ExXripwasv {cf. (S ixoXTjyeO = B comphiiit, and so Sa., 
mostcomm., BDB, Kon., //it'6. But in Ezr. 7'' thisHafel = 'give back,' 
and deDieu observed that the corresponding Syr. Afel (also appearing 
here in &) always = 'hand over, deliver,' i.e., = Heb. "^''^P^'. Cf. also 
Heb. ^.'^"^ Is. 38'-- ", s. (5 and Duhm ad Joe. This view is preferred by 
Behr., Mar., GB, and if there is some legal or commercial background 
to this phrase, as suggested above in the Comm., counting would nat- 
urally culminate in paying over. — 27. ^'??i'?^] The only case of Peil in 


2d pers. sing. ; the spelling in nh — nicely marks out the form from a 
possible Peal ^'^P^. 0, followed by Jer. in his comm., understood this 
and the following nnontrn as fems., referring to ihidSc. — ^I^J^'O Bar 
(s. his note), Gin., Str.; ^'J^M° Mich., Kit.] The latter form as dual, 
so also in Mand., would appear more natural; so Kau., §51, i, Bev., 
Kamp., Mar. But the sing. Njnn is now found in the papp., APA G, 
I. 24, along with the sing, n^jtid in Mand., s. Nold., MG §124, who 
supposes that this is a sing, reduced from the orig. dual in -ayin. For 
sloughing off of the dual in general s. Kon., Syntax, §257, e. — ~^^~^] As 
Behr. notes, this adjectival form indicates, as against the ppl. "i?;^, in- 
grained characteristic, i.e., 'defective.' — 28. nons] Sa., Ra., AEz. un- 
derstood this in sense of 13^' 'break'; and so vLeng., followed by Hitz., 
held that '0 = vis 'break down,' on the ground that the Bab. king- 
dom was not divided but handed over in toto to the Medo-Persians. 
But the normal sense of did maybe retained, withQS'TI; when an em- 
pire is destroyed its unity is lost, even if it be absorbed as a whole by 
the conqueror. — "^1?] The 2d -7- is due to Mass. heightening; the orig. 
form is Pars. — "'"li?] = OPers. Mdda = Akk. Mddai; also in the papp. 
(Behistun decree), Safaite, Syriac. This form is accommodated to use 
as gentilic in ><;■;? 6', cf. Heb. '"!? 1 1^; cf. Wright, Gr. i, §251 /. 

29-c. 6, 1 (c. 5, 31). The sequel. 29. Dan. received the prom- 
ised rewards. 30. And immediately, in that very night Belsh. the 
ChaldcBan king was slain. C. 6, 1. And Darius the Mede suc- 
ceeded to [a technical term, lit. received] the royal power, being 
sixty-two years old. For the historical questions involved s. Int., 
§19, d. e. The Mass. division concludes the story dramatically 
with v.^°; 6^ follows very lamely, but it belongs as a postscript 
to c. 5. The term 'Chaldaean' is used in its proper ethnic sense 
(otherwise v.", etc.). d varies extremely; it om. the note of 
Belsh. 's death, saying euphemistically that 'the interpretation 
came upon Belsh.,' etc., and revising the succession to Belsh. 
ace. to some historical theory: 'Artaxerxes the Mede received 
the kingdom,' while Darius appears in 6^ without introduction. 

29. in^n] See on nthd 3*. — 30. ^x■^yvsS3] For change of spelling s. 
at V.'; the change here makes liaison with 7^ 8'. — noSc] Qr^ 7MSS om. 
— xncD] B 6 XaXSai'wv, error for 6 Xa>.SatO(;. — The correct sequence 
with foil. V. is observed by B Hipp., Jer., etc., and the Western Bibles. 
Another division appears in A, which begins a new 'Vision' at v.^"; 
this agrees with the chapter division of (gs in the middle of v.^". — C. 6, 1 . 
^^^,17] = Ddriya{w)ul, the Akk. form of the name; spellings in Aram. 


dockets and papp. (s. GB, p. 168) are closer to the OPers., e.g., irnim 
APO, pap. I, Ddryawa{h)irs. — ■?.^-] The phrase 'receive the kingdom' is 
found 7'^ Here it is used of secular succession, for which use Bev. eft. 
(p. 20) the same phrase for Julian's succession in the Syr., Hoffmann, 
Julianas, p. 5, 1. 10. And so H, successit in regniim, and Sa., 'the rule 
became Darius'.' Hence it is not necessary with Mar., Cha., to read 
in the mng. that Dan. received it from God, nor with earlier comm. (s. 
Pole) and modern apologists {e.g., Boutflower, c. 14) to argue that 
Darius, qua Gobryas, etc., received dominion from Cyrus. Also s. on 
I^DH, 9I. — 'ji i3o] = '62 years old'; 3 of time at which, s. at 4''; the 
'about' of EW is unnecessary. (& here xXt)pt)c; twv T)[j.£pwv x. svBo^og 
T75 YT)p£', i-e., a doublet: tcXyipy]!; = 13d (so ■Kkrigr\c, Is. i^), evSo^o; = 
'^??. Behr. has an impossible solution, working with letter numerals; 
but s. at 2*. 


See Bludau, pp. 149-151. The text of d is considerably abbreviated. 
This appears in the curtailment of the king's address to Dan., vv."^-, and 
the total omission of Dan.'s reference to Neb.'s experiences, vv.'*--. The 
omission of both these passages is evidently due to economy; the first of 
them is a repetition, the second reviews the well-known story in c. 4. For 
the different order of events in vv.'- ^, and criticism of Jahn and Cha. for 
their preference of (&, s. Comm. at v.^. In v.' the king summons the queen 
for advice, a distinct toning down of the historical color in l|. We have 
noted in the sequel of the story the colorless paraphrase and the substitu- 
tion of 'Artaxerxes' for 'Darius.' In vv.-^--^ the mysterious words are not 
given, and the interpretations, except for the first case, T)pt'0[i.TjTat, are 
inexact. Those mystic words were probably dropped as unnecessary anti- 
quarian ballast, v.'"" appears to be a later supplement, to give more exactly 
than is given at vv.-^*^- the interpretation of those words; the v. reads: Autiq 
•{) Ypa9T), TjptOpnQTat, xaxeXoYtaO-r], e^^pTat, followed by the obscure state- 
ment, I'oTiQ f) ypciiliaaa X^ig, xal ocutt) r\ auYxpcortc; otJTWv. Note that auyxptat? 
is Theodotionic. It was doubtless in consequence of this failure that a 
preface was subsequently prefixed to the chap., giving an abstract of the 
story, concluding with the data of the mystic words and their interpretation. 
In no respect is (6 preferable to l|; it appears to be an intentional abstract. 
There are but slight clews suggesting that (S's Semitic text was in like ab- 
stract form. We may note: v.°, uxovotat aiiTov xaxsaiceuSov, cf. (& at 4" 
(but ^ may simply have repeated from that passage). V.'', exl Gsupiav 
!Sciv: possibly a doublet translation. Ihid., axoXtel kjtov, when the origi- 
nal meant '^^'^■?i-, but was read ^J'»r'37\ Jq yw ^^^ jj^g nominal clause, 
xal xb •7rve0[ji.(4 aou sv t^ /etpl ocutoO. 



(i) 2-10 (1-9). Darius appointed throughout his kingdom 120 
satraps, and over these three presidents, of whom Dan. was one 
(not 'first' with AV), and the king was minded to make Dan. 
chief over the whole realm. This purpose aroused the envy of 
Dan.'s associates, who decided they could find indictment 
against him only on the score of his religion. Accordingly they 
conspired to secure from the king a decree, irrevocable according 
to the law of the Medes and Persians, to the effect that any man 
who would ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days 
save of the king, should be cast into the lions' pit. (2) 11-19 
(10-18). But Dan. made no change in his public acts of religion, 
was denounced to the king, and, despite the latter's efforts in 
behalf of his favorite, was cast to the lions. (3) 20-29 (19-28). 
Early next morning the king hastened to the lions' den, found 
Dan. safe, and delivered his accusers to the death they had de- 
vised for him. Then the king published a decree confessing 
Dan.'s God and requiring his people to fear Him. 

The story is parallel to that of the Three Confessors, c. 3; 
Dan. is tested as they were in the supreme article of the Jewish 
faith. With Bev.: "The main difference is that chap, vi dwells 
upon the positive side of Judaism." The introduction of a new 
regime gives dramatic opportunity for this repeated test. There 
is no inherent impossibility in the escape of a victim thrown to 
the lions. But the historical character of the story must be 
judged from the evidently apocryphal character of the whole 
series of stories in the book. Far more improbable than this 
material marvel is the alleged edict demanding that no request 
be made of god or man but of the king for a whole month, an 
improbability all the greater under the devout Darius. Even 
the insensate Antiochus Epiphanes, the 'Manifest God,' never 
made such a claim, and if we desired an historical parallel we 
should have to come down to the still madder Caligula. The 
story is based upon the actual solidarity of the Pagan imperial- 
ism, in which the king with his despotic power and his formal 
claims to divine rights was the symbol and summation of the 
denial of the true God. Hence monarchs like Nebuchadnezzar 
and Darius, who otherwise are sympathetically treated, appear 

:2-10 (1-9) 


as the incarnation of all the forces arrayed against God. A 
similar claim of sole deity is attributed to Neb. in Judith 
3*. For defence of this and other edicts in the bk, s. Wilson, 
c. 16. 

2-4 (1-3). Dan.'s preferment. To Darius as the inaugurator 
of the Medo-Persian empire is ascribed the institution of a new 
provincial system. The 120 satraps (AV 'princes') is an exag- 
geration, or at least an inaccuracy. Her., iii, 89, records that 
Darius created 20 satrapies, and that king's inscriptions give 
their number successively as 21, 23, 29 (s. Paton at Est. i^). 
Ace. to Est. i^ Xerxes had 127 provinces, which is practically 
identical with our figure. The same technical inaccuracy is 
found in the Greek historians, who use 'satrap' of lower offi- 
cials, e.g., Xenophon; Appian, Syr., 62, speaks of 74 satrapies 
under Seleucus Nicator. See Comm. and Notes at 3^. There is 
no known parallel to the ' three presidents.' The same traditional 
number appears in i Esd. 3'. We may possibly compare the 
triple royal control of the satrapies through the association with 
the satrap of an independent commandant and secretary; s. 
Rawlinson, SGM 'The Fifth Monarchy,' c. 7, and Meyer, GA 
§40. For the suspicious caution of the whole imperial system 
against loss of revenue and other damage, cf. Ezr. 4"^-. We 
have here true reminiscence of the elaborate organization and 
civil service of Persia. Above all these other officials Dan. was 
distinguishing himself, not with AV 'was preferred.' 

5-10 (4-9). The plot of the rivals against Dan. The story 
does not tell how Dan. was omitted from the consultation of 
the conspirators and their presentation to the king — an unnec- 
essary scruple in a good story. 5 (4). The last clause, neither 
was there any error or fault found against him, is tautologous 
with the similar phrase in the earlier part of the v., and is ap- 
parently a dittograph (so Behr., Cha.). In the account of the 
conspirators' audience with the king a vb. is used which is 
translated in AV RVV by 'assembled,' in AVmg RVmg JV by 
'came tumultuously.' The same vb. is repeated in w.^^ (u). 16 (15) _ 
The latter mng., which may be etymologically justified, is im- 
possible both in the court etiquette and in espionage. In the 
Note the conclusion is reached that it means came in concert, 
collusion. 8 (7). The conspirators claim to speak for the entire 
officialdom. Their ostensibly honorific plea that the king sign a 


decree that none should make request of god or man except of 
the king for thirty days appears to many commentators as ab- 
surd, and probably for this reason (^ omits the item. But these 
stories are generally reasonable; the terms of the request may 
be meant as a satiric hyperbole, cf. Jon. 3*, where the Ninevite 
king orders both man and beast to put on sackcloth. Behr.'s 
position is an entirely sensible one that the implication of the 
story means a petition of religion (not with Bev. any kind of 
request), and that this one king was to be regarded for the time 
being as the only representative of Deity. Such a position was 
absolutely alien to the religion of the historical Darius, but in 
the Hellenistic age, when kings vaunted themselves as gods, ' of 
god or man' was entirely appropriate in the premises. For 'to 
make a firm decree,' AV, or 'strong interdict,' RVV JV, tr. to 
put in force an interdict. The terms statute and interdict and 
writing and interdict, v.i''^^^ are in the nature of legal pleonasm; 
cf. Jer. 36", ' the roll and the words.' For the alleged irrevoca- 
bility of the Medo-Persian law, v.^'i"), cf. Est. i^^^ S^. Bochart, 
Hierozoicon, i, 748, cites a passage from Diodorus Sic, xvii, 30, 
ed. Didot, concerning Darius Ill's attitude toward his sentence 
of death upon Charidemos: "immediately he repented and 
blamed himself, as having greatly erred ; but it was not possible 
to undo what was done by royal authority." For the extraor- 
dinarily barbarous forms of capital punishment in the power of 
the Persian king s. Rawlinson, SGM 'Fifth Monarchy,' end of 
c. 3; for the wholesale execution at end of the chap. cf. Her., iii, 
119, Justin, xxi, 4, Amm. Marc, xxiii, 6. For the royal zoological 
gardens of Assyria s. Meissner, Bab. u. Ass., 1, 74, and cf. Comm. 
sup. at 2^*. For the capture of lions for this purpose cf. Eze. 
jQ8£f._ jtqj- ^q elder material on lions and citation of traditions 
concerning Dan. in the den, s. Bochart, Hieroz., iii, c 3; for 
Rabb. stories, 'Daniel,' JE. The earliest apocryphon to the 
theme is found in the supplement to Bel and the Dragon. The 
variation of this apocryphon from our story suggests that it is 
based upon an earlier, popular form of the story. 

2 (1). oi|~i 13-'] Cf. 3^-. — °''i"!Dl] For the expression of purpose by a 
parallel vb. cf. 2^^— N^JD-nirnNJ S. at 3% Ace. to Est. i', 8^, i Esd. 32, 
127 provinces, and so 05 reads here. Jos., AJ x, 11, 4 attributes 360 
provinces to Darius.— ^?] RW JV 'throughout,' not 'over all,' AV. 

62-10(1-9) 271 

— 3 (2). I'^^T'? '^t"^] This prepositional phrase is found in the papp., 
JAram., Syr.; for the ace. form n^>' cj. n>'-in 2", nSd 2*°. — I'?!?] l"iD is 
generally accepted, since Ges., Thes., as a Pers. word; s. Bev., Andreas 
in Mar. Gloss., and Lexx. Behr. proposed a Sem. derivation, = Arab. 
sarika, 'be associated.' Aq. gives the same etymology in his auvsx- 
Ttxous. The word appears in Targ., e.g., Pr. 6', and tr. Heb. '^9''^', along 
with a derivative I?"!?. — ^?^^] So pointed also in Ezr. 4^, and with the 
same mng.; the dagesh in c emphasizes the swa with j?; for other cases 
of this dag. lene orthophonicum, s. Kau., §9, Anm. 3. — i"".^^] For the rt. 
s. GB; it appears in Haf. also Ezr. 4"- '^- ", and the borrowed PU in 
Heb., Est. 7^. The ppls. of these intrans. vbs., e.g., ^r^} Ezr. 4^^ are 
pointed as kdtil, not katil, as is to be expected. — 4 (3). nji Sxiji] The 
pron. may have been intruded here from v.^. — '^?^7'?] Cf. Heb. Piel 
T^liV^. of a presiding ofHcer; the Ethpaal appears in the Aram, copy of 
Darius' Behistun Inscr., APO pap. 62, col. i, 1. 11. — reads v.'', x. V 
Aav. uTsp aJTou? = &; Or? Lu. supplied the lacuna: x. ■^v Aav. ixspvwwv 
UTcsp T. ffuve/.Tty.ou^ (Or^, xay.xr/.o'j; Lu.) y.. to:; aaxpaxaq. — Nl\"ii nn] 
= 51=. The Sura tradition rightly reads m\-i> (Bar, Gin.)— ^^'^^j 
Pass. ppl. with Nold., GGA 1884, 1019, cf. his SG §280 for similar use 
of pass. ppl. in Syr.; s. also on si 5-°. Kau., §38, i, a, regards "; as Peal 
stative with ^/e?ie-writing, s. §39 end. In Sachau's Ahikar papp. r<Z'-; 
appears in the same sense, also the Ethp. n^'jTN; but note that in the 
papp. the pass. ppl. is always written plene. For the root in Heb. s. 
Kau., Araniaismen, 72. ignored the word; Or^ supplied it, xpoa£56y.a. 
— 5 (4). ^l>-\ For discussion of the rt. s. GB s.v. hebr. SSy I. In Pesh. 
the word is used of a legal indictment, ground of accusation, e.g., Mt. 
27'', as also of a pretext, e.g., Mk. 12^", = xpocpaatg, and so here 0. — 
SnijiS nnasrnS] S = 'against'; similarly in the Strasbourg Pap., APO 
pp. 26/., AP no. 27, 1. 3, ]'? nj.-i^-n n*^ Sjhd ayur:, 'nothing injurious 
was found to our discredit'; = ini'Ty nDncn v. 5. — nhidSd ixd] om.; 
OrP £■/. Twv ■Kkayioyy tt]s t^atsiXeictQ = B ex latere regni. See Note on 
isS 7^^. Other cases of the exceptional assimilation of the prep. Ezr. 
5^1, 6". — '^'^'r''f ] = Sann in the line cited from the Strasbourg Pap. The 
word appears in BSira 30''. has a doublet xapAxTWiJia ■/.. a\}.^'k6iY.r)\La; 
otfj.^. is an Aquilanic gloss, cf. Jer. in Field, appearing again below in 
OrP. — 1' v] 'Remissness,' also Ezr. 4--, 6' in the same sense of defalca- 
tion in duty, as above 3-^ Kr. The whole of this last clause of the v. 
om., OrP supplies (with diXTcXaxTjiJia y.xX.). The clause is doublet to 
'.11 rh-; Sdi above, poss. through variation between nSj? and iSr. — 6 (5) • 
NjnD'^n] In the papp. this part is in ; — — ^1] Here of divine law, and 
so used of the Thorah Ezr. 71=. etc.; i,ij_ 725 = 'religion.' The erroneous 
m Dt. 33^ was so interpreted. It means here as in the Talm. 'religion,' 
s. Jastr., s.v. 


7 (6). ^^n^] = vv.i- i«. Hardly a word in the O.T. has provoked 
more variety of interpretation than this in its triple occurrence in the 
chap. The variety begins with the VSS: 




(S TupoaTjXGoffav 
g> iJip' drew nigh' 
11 surripuerunt 

noj 'watched' 
curiosius inqitirenies 


(vacat, OrP xapexi^pTiaav) 

nnx 'made outcry' 


B's surripuerimt appears to mean 'they stole away [to the king],' and 
Prof. R. G. Kent corroborates this with his opinion, although he finds 
no similar use of the Latin vb. Grot, thinks the orig. rdg. was surrepse- 
riint, 'stole to'; however, the other rdg. is vouched for in Jer.'s comm.: 
"pulchre dixit, surripuerunt." Similarly the Jewish comm. vary: Ra. 
at v.^ iSnn Sy itrctt'D, i.e., 'felt, stole their v/ay,' cf. TJ, and at v.'- this is 
expanded into ^z^'Dn^ iiynti'D, 'stole their way and spied.' AEz. inter- 
prets at v.' by nannn, 'associated themselves,' and eft. dmj itrj-\ nnS, 
Ps. 2^, and rjnJ l^^nj, Ps. 5515. But Sa. tr. by three different vbs.: 
'came to'; 'quarrelled with'; 'rushed against.' The comm. of the 
Reformation followed variously: (i) insidiose aggressi regent = Iff; (2) 
conuenerimt (so Buxt.), congregarunt, or concursum fecerunt = GV 
'drangen,' AV RW 'assembled'; (3) cum tumuUu occurrerunt (Mon- 
tanus), tumultuarie conuenerunt (Grot., who however tr. with concur- 
santes at v.'" and conglobati at v.^^); AVmg RVmg JV 'came tumultu- 
ously.' Modern comm. have generally adopted the last mng. It is ex- 
pressed plausibly by Dr., who tr. by 'came thronging.' But Cha. prop- 
erly takes exception to 'coming tumultuously' as not suitable to the 
context here or in vv."- ^'^. But Cha.'s remedy lies in textual change; in 
V.' he would read after & uip 'approached,' eUding the word in v.'^ 
with (B 0, and interpreting it in v.'- after S», 'kept watch, spied,' and so 
our vb. is used in Aram., e.g., Targ. Jer. Ex. 2^. But this proceeding 
is quite too arbitrary. Another line may be ventured upon. It has 
been observed that in Ps. 55^' '^V.'?.? is || to TiD and is translated by 05 
ev h[i.ow((f, and so & 13 cum consensu; also Ps. 64' ^'^P.^ is || to I'D and 
so S» interprets it. Buxt. also gives the mng. 'fellowship' to n^'jt Targ. 
Pr. 7'^. Further, Briggs in his Comm. insists that ^'^■?1 Ps. 2' means 
'consent together.' These instances corroborate AEz.'s nannn; afid 
Ibn Janab at Ps. 2^ tr. 'were assembled.' Now in Syr. the Peal and 
especially the Afel of cjt have the mng. 'to sense, perceive,' etc., gen- 
erally representing yiyvwaxetv, sfScvat. But in Syr. of Acts 5- auvetSutac; 

611-19 (10-18) 273 

•zr]q Yuvat/.6g, 'his wife being privy to it,' the ppl. is translated by 
N-r-'ji. The vb. appears then to have developed from the thought of 
scientia to conscientia, common consciousness, fellow-feeUng, and so to 
common action. A parallel development may be found in the Heb. rt. 
□::n, whose occurrence in Ruth i" the Targ. tr. with v^Ji. This paral- 
lelism is borne out by the papp. We find the adv. n>jicn (= hamondyit, 
adverbial form as in Syr.; s. APO pap. i, 1. 5 = AP no. 30, and APO 
pp. 26 ff., \. 4 = AP no. 27) in the phrase jj-nM d;; n^jinn, which is 
best translated 'in league with Waidarnag,' so Cowley, following Euting 
and Sachau 'conspiracy.' There may be noted too yjn) pen Is. 63" || 
□^cm, where the first phrase = 'sympathy.' Has ^nn developed from 
the sense of 'noise' through 'music' to that of 'harmony'? Compare 
the figurative use of the latter term. Our vb. i-'jnn then may be taken 
as mng. 'they acted in concert, harmony,' here practically, 'in con- 

8 (7). r:>-\o] Here = officials in general; cf. the list 3^ and for the 
sagans 2", for the xnjin ^M.—iishn d;i7 ncji'^';'] Generally rendered 'to 
establish a royal decree,' with ignoring of the emph. '2 ; idSd were to 
be expected. But with the accents 'd is to be construed as nom. to the 
inf., so JHMich., Mein., Mar., al., RVmg JV (per con. s. Bev., Dr.). 
For similar position of subj. of inf. in Heb. s. GK §115, k. Cf. the Heb. 
Piel Ruth 4', Est. 9=^— o;!:] = 'decree'; in Syr. Ps. 2' = pn.— ^sp^o'? 
"^?^!] = 'confirm, put in force, an interdict'; hardly with most comm., 
e.g., Bev., 'make a strong interdict' (JV 'strong decree'). Dr., 'make 
a stringent interdict.' The vb. is || to ncp, as appears from nnos D>pn 
v.s. NnDN has the Aram. mng. of the rt., 'interdict,' found also in Heb., 
Nu. 30^-1^, where "'F^' = a vow of abstention; cf. post-Bib. i-io''!*. — a'j] 
EW 'den,' properly 'pit, cistern,' = Arab, jubb, Heb. iia, used of the 
often bottle-shaped cisterns found in Palestine. — '*t3t"1^] For this pi. 
s. Kau., §61, 6, Anm., Nold., SG §§79, 146. As Bev. notes, the first d 
is EAram., for which cf. Nold., §49, B; so POIt. 7'. 

9 (8). a^■?■?] The Pael is to be expected, after v.' (Mar.).— ^;^v'i:'r] 
For the act. inf. with pass, implication cf. APO pap. 54, 1. 14, i^o-y 
nincS I'l'c.— Difli nn] riepawvx. MtjSwv (and so vv."- ^^ represents the 
later view of the proportions of Media and Persia. 'Parthians and 
Medes,' En. 56^ follows 0's order. — myn nh n] Cf. Heb. -113;'^ «'?! Est. 
i'^ 8^ 0om.; the other VSS, followed by Bert., regard the phrase as 
epexegetical ('so that') to nijt:>n'7 n'?, but the gender of the vb. makes 
the clause dependent on m. 

11-19 (10-18). The condemnation of Daniel. 11 (10). And 

when Dan. knew that the document was signed, he went into his 

house — now he had windows opening in his roof-chamber toward 


Jerusalem — and three times a day he was kneeling upon his knees 
and praying and confessing before his God, even as he was wont 
to do before this. The passage is valuable as a picture of the 
ritual of piety of early Judaism; we note the several items of 
a special place of devotion, of the direction of prayer toward 
Jerusalem, of the attitude of kneeling, and of the three times 
of prayer. For the roof-chamber (EW, 'upper chamber') cf. 
Moore on Ju. 3^°: "an apartment raised above the flat roof of 
a house at one corner, or upon a tower-like annex to the build- 
ing, with latticed windows giving free circulation to the air," and 
so used as a place of retirement and spiritual occupation, cf. 
I Ki. 1 7^3, 2 Ki. i^, 4'°f-. The Gr. equivalent virepwov is found 
in Acts i", 9"- ^^, 20^, appearing also in these reff. as a place of 
prayer. The 'roof-chamber' also appears as a rabbi's apart- 
ment in the Talmud, Kethuboth, 50&. He had windows opening 
out: Ehr. is prob. right in holding the Aram, 'opened,' jPITlS, 
means windows cut in the wall; cf. the identical phrase in the 
pap. text cited in the Notes and the use of nri2 in the Talmud. 
The window was open at Dan.'s prayers, and this facility of 
observation and the fronting toward Jerusalem gave the con- 
spirators their opportunity of denunciation. A Rabb. dictum, 
Berakoth, 346, cited by Ehr., holds that 'a man is not to pray 
except in a house with windows,' giving the present v. as proof- 
text. Toward Jerusalem: This practice is assumed in the 
(Deuteronomic) prayer of Solomon, i Ki. 8^*^-; cf. Ps. 5^, 28^ 
for the temple as the kiblah; also i Esd. 4^^, cf. Tob. 3" eherjOr] 
Trpo'i rrj Ovpihi. The custom is alluded to in the Mishna, Berak., 
iv, 5. 6. Mohammed borrowed the custom from the Jews, and 
first made Jerusalem the ^iblah, later Mecca; the Christians did 
not follow this example (against Behr.), although the custom 
came to prevail of orientating toward the East, s. Bingham, 
Antiquities, 8, c. 3, §2. Three times a day: Cf. Ps. 55'^, 'At eve- 
ning and morning and noon-day will I complain' (but Ps. 119^^^ 
'Seven times a day do I praise thee'). Comparing inf. 9^^ (q-v.), 
where Dan. prays at the time of 'the evening oblation,' the 
midday prayer in Dan.'s devotions was doubtless that which 
was later known as the Minhah, 'oblation' (cf. Lev. 6^2ff. for- the 
morning and the evening oblation), the evening oblation, offered 
in the mid-afternoon, having become the chief daily sacrifice 
and so fixing the most obligatory time of private prayer. For 

511-19 (10-18) 275 

the early importance of that sacrifice cf. 2 Ki. i6^^, Ezr. g^, Ps. 
141^; for the N.T. age Acts 3^, 10^; and for the Rabbinic order 
of the three daily Prayers Berak., iv, i. On the subject of the 
stated prayers s. Hamburger, RE 2, 'Abendgebet,' 'Minchage- 
])et,' 'Morgengebet'; Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vorirage, 368 £.; 
Schurer, GJV §24, n. 40 and §27, Anhang; Bousset, Rel. d. 
Jud., 202 ff. This custom of the three daily times of prayer 
went over into the Church: Didache 8, Tpt? t?'}9 rifxepa'; ovtco 
irpoaev'xeaOe {i.e., with use of the Lord's Prayer); s. Harnack, 
TU ii, parts 1-2, p. 27. Of the five obligatory prayers in 
Islam the third, the most important, salat al-'asr, is at the time 
of the Minhah. He was kneeling: The attitudes of prayer in 
the Bible are various (s. Hamburger, RE i, 408; DB 3, 7/.); in 
early Judaism kneeling came to be common, cf. Ezr. 9^, and the 
numerous reff. in the N.T. Later Judaism appears to have 
abandoned it; in the Church it was the rule with definite ex- 
ceptions at certain seasons and occasions, s. Bingham, I.e., c. 8. 
Before his God: This circumlocution was common in courtly 
language, cf. 'speak before the king,' v.", etc.; for this usage in 
Judaism s. Dalman, Worte Jesu, 171. 

12-14 (11-13). Then those men came in concert [s. at v.'] and 
found Dan. engaged in his customary and well-known devotions. 
They bring their denunciation to the king, first assuring them- 
selves of his acknowledgment of the irrevocability of his edict. 
The theme is an early dramatic instance of the outwitting of 
an innocent ruler by his own laws; Dr. compares the case of 
Herod, Mt. 14. This legal point clinched, Dan. is denounced. 
15 (14). Then the king . . . was sore vexed [not, 'at himself,' 
with AV], and on Dan. he set his mind to deliver him; and he was 
striving till sunset to rescue him. ' Striving ' is the picture of the 
animal caught in the toils; he consulted the lawyers, he tried 
to browbeat the conspirators. 16 (15). The latter resorted again 
to the king in the evening and impudently demanded their prey. 
17 (16). The king had to yield. But his admiration for Dan. 
made him express the assurance that the latter's God would 
deUver him — in striking contrast to Neb.'s impiety, 3'^ 18 (17). 
The execution of the sentence was made sure by closing the 
mouth of the pit with a stone and sealing it with the seals of the 
king and his lords. The object of the sealing is well expressed 
by a plus in (^: that Dan. might not be taken away by them or 


raised up by the king. As protection against the king, his chan- 
cellor was doubtless charged with his signet; cj. Ahikar as the 
king's Great Seal (in the first of the Ahikar papp., 1. 3). As 
observed in the Note at v.^, the pit seems to have been con- 
ceived as a deep cisternlike cavity, the mouth of which above 
could be closed with a stone, and so sealed. The writer may 
never have seen a lions' den. Those who urge the historicity 
of the story, e.g., dEnv., insist that the mouth, or entrance, may 
have been on a lower level, as in the case of bear-pits in our zoo- 
logical gardens. Why, then, a stone and not the regular gate, 
and why was Dan. hauled up, v.^*? For the royal sealing cf. 
I Ki. 21^, Est. 3^^, 8^-^°. For Persia Her., iii, 128, refers to 
Darius' seal, a copy of which is known, s. Rawlinson, SGM 
'Fifth Monarchy,' c. 3, n. 456. 19 (18). This second act ends 
with the king retiring to his palace, where he passed the night 
fasting and sleepless and without his usual diversions. We may 
accept the latter non-committal translation (JV) of an obscure 
word. See the Note for the many essays at interpretation: 
'foods,' 'musical instruments' or 'musicians,' 'dancing women,' 

11 (10). Vl-.} Cf. APA J 1. 6, in^riD '3; the sing, in JAram. is ><'71? 
= Syr. — ^•'2''??] = Heb. ^V-'i, with secondary doubling of S, hence not 
kiml form with Kau., §59, f, Mar.; s. on nxSj? 326._[Ti2] xinj ^j^j^ 
Str., Bar, Lohr, = 8 &, vs. Mich., Gin., Kit. xin; the former rdg. is sub- 
stantiated by the VSS.— ''"''^l^] Bar, 'Caph raphatum teste Masora'; 
in the dual ; is expected, cf. Heb.; yet ^^'H^? Ju. y^.— ><l^oi ^'i'??] Cf. 
na-i'm N-iinc, 2^^. The vb. nSx also Ezr. 6", APO pap. i, 11. 15. 26. 
For 'confessing' s. at 9^. — ^^ '^°"'i''~P] = 'pa Ezr. 5" = njT nmp, 
APO pap. I, 1. 17.— 12 (11). Pn^-;^?] But ^?^'^'^ 7', ^"J^'^" Ezr. 7".— 
13 (12). ndSd nON Sj?] VSS om. idn h-;, exc. Or? "&, all construing 'd as 
voc, to which & adds 'live forever !' idn '73; is certainly otiose. — ncii'i] 
ETasots; this explains the difficult Tsiray^jievoi eti; t^wfjv aEwviov, 
Acts 13^^. — ^}'>-,\ See at 2^. — hid] xal ih ScytJia, error for orig. xaxi 
(so V 128), with suppression of the required relative. — 14 (13). 
npiSj "'J3 p] 'One of the exiles'; cf. 5". — dj?b yhy ds'] = 3'^ — noSs 2°] 
& H om. — nctin n nidx Syi] om. — nm>"3 !<;J3] = 'saying his 
prayers'; it is not necessary, with Cha., to supply 'to his God' after (8 0. 
— 15 (14). •'HiSy B'xa] The vb. is impersonal, with resumption of • the 
absolute n^Sd in •'ni'?;; cf. the Heb. '?x hy j?j7-». For the frequent im- 
personal vbs. in Syr. s. Nold., SG §254. Correctly ® & H, but sXuxt)6t) 
k-K aiiTO). — ■?] A word of Aram, and Arab, usage; also APO pap. 54, 

gll-19 (10-18) 277 

I. 3.— '!???] So best Str.; Mich., Gin., Kit. 'yj?.; Bar erroneously, with 
M^, "'-•?;? on witness of Mass. to \'??:? Lev. ii^ Against Kau.'s doubt 
as to the form, §61, 3, b, s. Nold., GGA 1884, 1020, adducing the Syr. 
construct pi. ma'dlai. For the pi. cf. Syr. madndhai lem'sa and Heb. 
VPNXID Mi. 5^ — ■^I'^'f"'?] The vb. in APO pap. 11, 1. 4, of legal action. 
Cf. the noun "i''"''-'"f?;! Ezr. 4=- ". — nniSxnS] In the papp. without the 
assimilation of j. — V.'' is omitted by B 106 148 228 230 231; the lacuna 
is due to haplography of the double iqeXsaOat for the two vbs. of 1|; 
n.h. 2MSS Ken. have nmar-'C'S for nmSxn'?. — 16(15). ^"J] 'A law,' with 
RW JV, or rather 'law,' not 'the law' with AV; Or? 56y(xa, al. -zh S. 
— °''i'!lv'l] See at 2-'. — xav 6pta[j.6v: s. Nestle, Sepiiiagintastudien, i, 

II, who shows that xav is used for masc. ace, e.g., 11^', Ex. 12^^. The 
awkward rendering toG . . . o'j Bsi xapaXXasott is due to literal render- 
ing of n 2° = Toj.— 17 (16). ^T"".'??] I.e., 'in the round of custom'; 
the noun is used in Targ. = t'::.^, and also as adv. Kau., §60, 6, erro- 
neously regards the form as 'Abplattung' of it^. — (6 exchanges v." 
and v.b, on logical grounds {cf. v.")- But 'Ji vn-'ni idn = 'he com- 
manded to bring,' etc.; cf. 2"" and s. Mar., Gr. §130, c. — 18 (17). 
^\^'\}] S. on V7\-'T\ 3".— ^T) m] Cf. in ih-i 2^\—^'^x\ For this pass. {cf. 
D-it? 3^9, 43) nrir jg ^q be expected with Kau., Str., Mar., al. Torrey, 
Notes II, 233, thinks of a combination of ^'^-'^' and i=?.— ^i";i>] So iHBab 
Bar, Str., = (&; Mich., Gin., Kit. '"'i:"> = & B.— ^^?] Primarily 'will, 
desire,' then 'thing,' as commonly in Syr., also in Palm.; cf. ns nn, 
APO pap. II, 1. 6. The VSS tr. correctly; Calv., al., 'purpose,' = AV, 
corrected by RVV JV ' (no) thing.' 

19 (18). ^}] The vb. in Akk. and Aram. For relation to noun no 
s. Lexx. and Haupt, SBOT Kings, p. 2io.^-~')?] The fem. as adv., the 
same form in Syr.; Kau. om. the word in the pertinent §67. — IV?-] Gin. 
notes pni as Or. rdg., and so M^"''. (8 ignores; sSlaiAa-ra = & B. Sa., 
Ra. understood it as of 'table' {i.e., 'boards,' s. Talm. Lexx.); AEz. of 
'musical instruments and songs'; similarly PsSa., 'musicians.' Levi b. 
Gerson, cited by Galle, plays on the rt. nm, "they drive away sorrow," 
or "perhaps they are raconteurs." Similarly Calv., 'instruments of 
music' = AV RVV, and deDieu etymologizing with 'pulsationes.' (But 
deDieu prefers combination with Arab, duhdn, 'incense.') The Heb. 
VS in Ken. tr. by nine"' and Jachiades etymologizes 'i as from nnn 
'pleasure'; hence GV 'liess nichts zu Lust vor sich bringen,' and JV 
'diversions.' The idea that the word implied women appears in PsSa.; 
cf. ^''V}'^- 'reveller,' cited by Jastrow, Diet. This line of explanation is 
followed by Bert., interpreting from Arab, dahd 'subiecit feminam.' 
Hence RVVmg, 'dancing girls,' and Mein., Behr., 'concubines.' In 
agreement with this idea Mar. {Gr.), Pr., Cha. regard the word as cor- 
ruption of ]:r\^ 5-, q.v. Haupt, there cited, regards the theme here, dah, 
as primary, njnS as secondary development. That the vb. S>'jn is used 


only of persons, as assumed by Main., is denied by its use in Targ., e.g., 
Gen. 6". That the king had concubines brought to him vsrould make of 
his evenings an absurd variety-hall entertainment. The scepticism of 
Bev., Dr., that the mng. is 'unknown' remains unimpeached, and JV's 
'diversions' is good because it is non-committal.^ i'^T] 'He did not 
have brought in.'—^VW] So Bar = M^^^; Gin., Str., Kit. ^^-W. The 
former is the Syr. pronunciation. Kau. explains (§12, d; §56, 2, b) as a 
case of dagh. f. dirimens, on which Nold. remarks {GGA 1884, 1018): 
"kein geheimnissvoller 'D.f.d.'; die vereinzelte Bildung schliesst sich 
ganz den med. gem. an," i.e., as though from pa", not }!:'■'; cf. MG §94. 
For the phrase iniSj? = dative cf. cases v.'^, 2^. — Part of a plus in (6 
has been taken over into text of 0: x. eVAetaev b Qzhq to: axdjAaTa twv 
Xsovirwv, vLoA oj TuapT^vtox^iQaav Try Aav.; Or^ Lu. om. 

2Q-25 (19-24). The deliverance of Dan. Then the king arose 
very early in the morning, so EVV; more exactly the adv. ex- 
presses 'the dawn,' and 'in the morning' the time when the 
sun was visible. When near the den he called to Dan. with a 
voice full-of-anxiety (AV 'lamentable, JV 'pained'), inquiring if 
his God had been able to save him. Dan. gives the joyful answer 
that God had sent his angel and closed the lions' mouths. The 
king in his joy commanded that Dan. should be lifted up, and 
then no manner of hurt was found in him because he trusted in 
his God. (RW JV, better than 'believed' of AV; the OLat. 
preserved in Cypr. has confidebat, vs. H crediderat). The theme 
is that of Heb. 11, which refers to this story at v.^^ The king 
thereupon commanded that his accusers with their families 
should be cast into the den. These became the prey of the 
ravenous beasts before their bodies reached the bottom; the 
story depicts them falling into the open mouths of the lions. 
Exception has been taken {e.g., by Jahn) to this wholesale de- 
struction of some 130 victims, which it is alleged the text of (^ 
simplifies by making the victims only the two co-presidents. 
But as is shown in the appended Note on (g this is a secondary 
simplification. The tragic denouement is indeed absurd, but 
the narrator doubtless ignored the large number at the begin- 
ning of the chap. 

26-29 (25-28) . The king publishes an edict requiring of his 
subjects in all (not 'every' AV) the dominion of my realm to 
render religious respect to Dan.'s God. The address and the 
contents of the edict are closely imitated after Neb.'s address, 

^20-29 (19-28) 279 

231-33 (41-3). Especially the end of the story reveals the nature 
of the theme as borrowed from c. 3. With Bert., Mar., JV the 
contents of the edict, vv.^^^^^^'-, are in poetical form. The 
appellation of Dan.'s God as the Living and ever-enduring God 
repeats on the one hand a typical phrase of the Heb. Bible, ' the 
Living God,' also used by the king in v.^i. The other attribute, 
an Aram, word, is an epithet of God in the Targ., e.g., Eze. !-■*, 
and in the Rabb. literature the same combination is frequent. 
'The Enduring One' is a constant epithet of Deity in the Sa- 
maritan literature (s. Montgomery, Samaritans, 215), and was 
a term which ace. to tradition Simon Magus arrogated to him- 
self, = e(TTcd9. The ref. to Cyrus in the final v. loosely connects 
with i-^; cf. lo^. 

20 (19) . S'nQ1?D*3] For the Large and Small Letters s. Gin.,/M<.,893. 

T T : * 

They do not appear in M^"^, where the word is divided, NiiJ naco, ace. 
to Gin. the Or. rdg. For the kataltdl formation s. Barth, Nh., §147, 
Duval, GS §243, Nold., SG §124, GK §84, n. The word appears in the 
Targ., = Syr. safrd, sefrd (also J Aram. nids). The rt. appears in Arab. 
safara, 'to lighten' (of the dawn). The manipulation of the letters in- 
dicates the two possible rdgs.: the reduplicated form and simple NiDtt'; 
so Torrey, Notes, II, 233. The parallel Nnjjj is the time when the sun 
had risen, cf. njj nix Pr. 4'', and marks the exact specification of 'ra, 
which means more generally 'at dawn.' For an apparent parallelism 
in Mt. 28', s. G. F. Moore, JAOS 26, 323-329. Kamp. is fully right in 
rejecting the treatment of one or the other term as a gloss, of '-o by 
Kau., in his Schriften d. A.T., of ':2 by Behr., Mar., Lohr, Ehr. (5 
read both terms, g- tr. one of them n^N^mos 'hurriedly.' — ^''P]] X.b. 
the impf. with inx, exactly as the Heb. construction with ?n; s. Mar., 
Gr. §101, d; but vv.-^- -« with pf.— nSna.-na] = 'in haste,' so 2", etc.— 
21 (20). nanpco] 3 used of point of time; mss Ken., de R. 3. — ^''Ti] = 
'pained, painful,' cf. Heb. rt.; Bev. eft. Arab, yaiimmi 'asibiin, Koran 
xi, 79. II lachrymabile, but (S S» 'loud.' — 23 (22). £vi9pa?av to 
ax6(jiaTO T(I)v XsdvTwv is cited Heb. 11", vs. ($. For the angel Segri = 
njD in Hermas s. Int., §13, n. 3.-131] = Targ. tr. of npnx (so correctly 
<& Lu. StxatoauvTj), i.e., legal 'innocence.' For the phrase cf. Ps. 51", 
Job 25^ f-. — nSi2n] So odd. correctly as fem., exc. Bar n — — 24 (23). 
y7\-hy 3nm] Cf. at v.i=.— pon .npojnS] Rt. pSo, s. Kau., §44, b.— 25 (24). 
im ,v-i.-i] For the vbs. as active cf. v.'^; it is not necessary with Mar. 
to read them as passives; im was taken by H as pass. — jun] For 
abs. use cf. f. — ]^n>•^:^ jinija] (6 g" 13 prefer the logical order, 'wives, 
sons'; cf. a similar reversal of order at 23^— "'^T"? ] = 'bottom,' based 


on the secondary sense of ;'in, s. at 2'^; Bev. eft. Heb. ^''000. — n ij?] = 
practically 'before,' cj. use of Arab. hata{y), Wright, Gr. 2, §15, c. Behr. 
notes that the clause with this conj. in late Heb. and Aram, generally 
includes a negative, cf. Ecc. 12'; Syr., Acts 2"" (but not Mt. i"^). — ipi'"!] 
For the vb. s. 2^^-^^, etc. — 26 (25). n^j2'^i] Grr. om. conj., exc. Or^. 
— 27 (26). B 6mss ^6j[La toOto, error for 0. tou (sc. stvai). — xi^ ^t] = 
'who' (EVV 'for he').— 28 (27). i^] = 'power,' cf. i Sa. 17" (where 
EVV tr. 'paw'); Lu. aT6[Aa-uos, H^" manu, but text, rec, C3T)r. lacu. 
— f^-?'!^] The intrans. and the trans, use (3'°) of n'"x also in Syr. = 
Heb. Hif. 


The variations of d in this chapter are surveyed by Bludau, §20, who 
comes to the conclusion that we have here rather 'a working-over than a 
translation.' With this judgment the present writer agrees, over against 
the criticism by Jahn, who offers a running and derisive depreciation of the 
text of l|. Cha., despite his preference for <S, ignores it in this chap. 

d's text is marked with doublets, e.g., v.('', vv.'^- ^\ v.("\ and vv.<*'- -'), 
with the double statement of the presence of the ofScials with the king at 
the den (and with reminiscence of 3"). There are several short additions: 
description of Dan.'s honor, v. <'>; the lively word of cheer put in the king's 
mouth, 'Keep up courage till to-morrow,' v. (^^>; the statement that 'then 
the God of Daniel took forethought (itpdvota, which occurs only in Wis. 
and the books of Mace, also frequently in Josephus) of him and stopped 
the mouths of the lions and they did not trouble Dan.,' v. (^'>, which re- 
places Dan.'s assertion in i§, v.--, that ' God sent his angel,' etc. In v. '^'> 
the king is made to say that he will serve Dan.'s God all his days, because 
hand-made idols cannot save, etc. In v.^^**' the statement of Darius' death 
is awkwardly inserted before v.'' = l|, v.-'. For other variations we may 
note the conspirators' 'adjuration' of the king 'by the laws of the Medes 
and Persians,' v.'^; the sarcastic touch with which the enemies dare to 
speak of Dan. as the king's 'friend,' v." (but s. inf); the placing of the 
king's word of cheer to Dan. before the latter's being cast to the lions, vv. 
(16. 17). ^-jjg query, 'Art thou alive?' v. '-°>, and Dan.'s response, 'I am still 
alive,' V. <">. 

Apart from some lively touches, which are characteristic of OS's genius, 
for the later handlers of the story were themselves good story-tellers, none 
of these points can be given preference over If, while the presence of doub- 
lets and repetitions is primary proof of the secondary character of (H as we 
have it. Only one point can be made for the reliability of (S as the simpler 
and therefore elder narrative, namely that vv. <^- ^- -^\ with their B60 a'vSpa<;, 
Sio vsavfoxot, 5uo d'vOpwxoi, make only the two co-presidents conspirators, 
and only these with their famiUes the victims of execution instead of the 
wholesale slaughter described ia 1^, which latter we must grant is an ab- 


surdity (but s. Comm. on vv.-"'^). The writer has discussed this criticism 
in a Note in JAOS 41, 316, to which the reader is referred, as also to the 
reply to it made by Prof. N. Schmidt in his art. 'Dan. and Androcles,' ib., 
46, 1-7. The result obtained in that Note is that the Sem. copy before C5 
made all the officials conspirators as definitely as ^. The present text of (&, 
with its gloss V. (*> ol 56o vsaviaxot, is evidently reminiscent of 'the three 
youths' of I Esd. 3^, and had in mind the rivalry of the two youths with 
Zerubbabel; so also Nestle, Marg., 28. (Ace. to Lagarde, Mitth. 4, 318, cf. 
GGA 1891, 519, the story of the Three Pages once stood after Dan. 6 '■>.) 

There may be noted the following Semitisms: v. (^' PouXtjv v.. jyuiiriy, cf. 
2"; V. <^"*' 6au(j.a!^£[v rcpoawxov; v. <'^' the conspirators' term for Dan. as 
Tbv 9!>.ov (Tou might stand, but more probably it represents i3in, which 
appears in (S 3<"> as <?cXo?; v.(i«) ?w? xpwf = 4(3°). 




With c. 7 begin the Visions, a book of independent origin 
from the Histories; see in general Int., §21. The view of some 
recent scholars that the original language of c. 7 was Hebrew 
is there adopted. Sect. b. And for theories of interpolations in 
c. 7 and for its origin as disparate from the following cc. see 
Sect. c. With regard to the literary form, the chap, is treated 
as on the whole prose with poetical rhapsodies, at vv.^- 1°' ^^- "• 
2^-"; so Mar., Lohr, Cha., while JV expresses poetical form in 
the first two passages. 

Analysis. 1. The circumstances of the Vision. 2-27. The 
Vision in two parts, 2-14, the phenomenon, and, 15-27, its in- 
terpretation by a celestial attendant. 28 . The sequel, the effect 
on the seer. 

The seer sees the four winds of heaven agitating the Great 
Sea, from which issue four diverse monstrous beasts: the first 
like a lion, the second like a bear, the third like a leopard, while 
the fourth is so horrible that it defies any zoological category. 
The latter engages his attention; in addition to its ten horns he 
beholds another of small size coming up, before which three of 
its predecessors are eradicated; the horn exhibits the spiritual 
traits of a human being. There follows the vision of a Session 
of the Divine Court, in sequel of which the fourth beast is de- 
stroyed. Then there appears coming with the clouds of heaven 
one 'like a son of man,' to whom universal dominion is given. 
The seer appeals for interpretation of the dream to one of the 
divine bystanders; he interprets it as typifying so many king- 
doms, with special explication of the fourth beast and its horns, 
which are kings, the little horn being the blasphemous oppo- 
nent of the Highest. But the divine Session typifies that beast's 
destruction, and the grant of universal dominion to the Saints 

of the Highest. 


f- 2^ 283 

The vision is a reminiscent replica of that of the Image in 
c. 2. With the four metals there correspond the four beasts 
here, while the divisive character of the lower part of the Image, 
which is of iron mixed with tile-work, is paralleled here by the 
conflict between the horns in the fourth beast. In both the 
kingdoms of this world are superseded by one of mysterious or 
celestial origin, there a Stone cut without hands, here a heavenly 
Man, each representing the divine kingdom that is to be. In 
both there is the same sequence of acts, representing the pro- 
gressive degeneration of the kingdoms of this world : from gold to 
iron, the basest of metals, from the eagle-winged lion, typifying 
the kings of beasts and birds, down through the meaner bear and 
leopard to a nameless monster, whose business is destruction. 
There is explicit reminiscence of the malignant character of the 
fourth kingdom, cf. wvJ- ^^ with 2^°. 

In simplicity and grandeur of theme this vision falls behind 
that of c. 2. But in this vision the author allows himself more 
room for fantasy, as in the details of the first three beasts, which 
have accordingly offered large room for inventive ingenuity on 
part of exegetes. On the other hand, the introductory scene of 
the four winds agitating the Great Sea and eructating the four 
beasts tastes of ancient mythological poetry, from which the 
theme takes its start; and the scene of the Divine Session with 
the coming of the Son of Man is appropriately sublime, one 
which has no equal among the other apocalypses for simplicity 
and reserve. 

Commentators all agree in giving identical interpretation of 
cc. 2 and 7. The present writer agrees with the great majority 
of modern commentators in understanding by the four succes- 
sive metals or beasts the several empires of Babylonia, Media, 
Persia, Greece, for the discussion of which s. Int. §19, c. There 
is more diversity of opinion concerning the interpretation of the 
Son of Man, whether he is to be regarded, like the Stone, as 
directly Messianic or as symbolical of the people of the saints; 
the latter view is held here. On this subject see the Note at 
end of the chap. 

1. In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel saw a 
dream and visions of his head upon his bed. Then he wrote the 
dream. [Beginning of the composition.] [He said do\ib\G.t.] 2a. 
Daniel answered and said. The usual translation of the last 


words of v.* is: 'he told the sum of the matters/ in the sense 
of 'essence/ 'recapitulation/ as though an abstract were given; 
so <S» U Jewish comm. and most. But the phrase is manifestly 
a title, 'beginning of the story, or book,' and so Aq. (at least 
Or'' Lu.) understood it, followed by Theodt., Pagnini, Vatablus, 
and in modern times by Nestle, Marg., 40, Kon., Hwb. So Tor- 
rey, Notes, 1, 281, remarking the similar use of 'head' ^"""l in 
PalSyr. for chapter headings; he regards it as gloss, with the 
implication: "Here begin the 'personal memoirs' of Dan.," etc. 
As a gloss it may be appositive to v.^*'', 'Here the end of the 
matter.' Nestle (cf. Kran., Mein.), comparing 'at the begin- 
ning' 9^1, regards it as the original title of the series of cc. and 
so appositive to 1 2^, in which case what precedes would be sec- 
ondary. We may best suppose early duplicate essays at en- 
titlement, this phrase having in view the whole series of cc. 
' Then he wrote the dream ' is a summary statement of the sub- 
sequent literary composition. For the writing of the vision cf. 
the angelic order, 12*, and also Is. 8^^, 30*, Hab. 2^, Rev. i^^ 21*, 
2 Esd. 14" '^•. 

1. 'S mn nj'^ra] In 8' 'S3 nisSc'?, without difference. In the epi- 
graphic texts the king's name is used absolutely without the prep., e.g., 
Sachau's pap. i, Clay, Aramaic Indorsements. For Trptoxw B the unique 
error TpiT(p, corrected by later hands (the same error in (& lo'). — 
ixc'nS^] This incorrect spelling here and 8', vs. c. 5 -\^n-y^2, except at 
v.^°, where the spelling was accommodated to the present for liaison's 
sake. The difference of spelling is a proof of diverse origin of the two 
parts of the book. — S33] © x^^Safwv, with reminiscence of 5'°.— 
^l'^. OaD] = 'had a dream vision,' cj. 4^ — 'Visions of his head upon his 
bed'] Cf. 2-*, 4"- ^°. As the v. is reminiscent of the earlier book, it is 
not necessary with Torrey to supply njj'i'nii, or with Lohr to omit 'and 
visions of his head.' — i^n f'^D i^'nt] (S etq x£90£Xa!o: Xoywv ('for a sum- 
mary'), ignored, Or^ agxh Xoywv elursv, so Lu., but om. stxsv. For 
the phrase cf. y\2-\ rxi Ps. 119'^° {cf. 137"). 13 has an interesting 
doublet translation: hreni sermone comprehendit summatimque pcrstrin- 
gens ait. The same phrase occurs in the Syriac Menander, s. Land, 
Anec. syr., vol. i, f. 163V = 'the first business' of a man. As for the 
doublet -iDN and, v.-, ncvsi 'i tm-j (this eUded by Blud., Mar., Lohr, 
Cha.), (& om. both, the former; but has a trace of the second phrase 
in eyco Aav., i.e., rdg. nj;; as ri:N. Lu. read the full text. There is more 
textual authority therefore for the retention of this phrase thdn of 
'he said,' and the former is to be preferred for its genuine Aramaic 

7'" 285 

2b-8 . The vision of the four beasts arising out of the sea. 2b. 
I was seeing in my vision by night, and behold, 

The four winds of heaven : were stirring up the Great Sea. 

For the introductory phrase cf. 4^- 1°; it is repeated eight times 
in this chap. Cf. the repeated 'I saw' in the vision of doom, 
Jer. 4^3 ff-. The Grr. tr. the vb. with decopetv^ however, in Aram, 
the one vb. does for both physical and spiritual vision; in Rev. 
opav is used. The four winds are the cardinal winds, 'the south 
wind, the north wind, the east wind and the west wind' of the 
Bab. Seven Tablets of Creation, iv, 43; cf. Eze. 37^, etc. They 
are not the patron angels of the four kingdoms, with Jer., nor 
angels in general, with early Prot. comm. and Keil; nor is there 
any particular mythologizing strain, with Gunkel, Schopfung, 
329, or W. R. Smith, suggesting a connection with Phoenician 
cosmogony, s. Bev., p. 120, n. i. Far more apt for the picture 
of storm at sea are the Classical reff. adduced by Grot., al. ; e.g., 
Verg., Aen., i, 86^., naming Eurus, Notus, Africus; Ovid (cited 
by dEnv.), Tristia, i, eleg. 2, describing Eurus, Zephyr, Boreas, 
Notus, and remarking pertinently, "Nescit cui domino pareat 
unda maris." The winds are the product of the sea, and so 
'hurricanes and mighty tempests' are the spawn of the evil 
domain of Chaos, Bab. Seven Tablets, iii, 30 jf. The ' Great Sea' 
is not the Mediterranean, with Grot., Hitz., al. (also Nestle, 
Marg., 39, as possible), although the term is so used in Jos. i*, 
etc., but is the nnn Qinn ' Great Abyss' of Am. f\ Is. 5110, and 
our phrase is properly cited. Rev. 17*, as 'Abyss.' It is used 
symbolically of 'the agitated world of nations' (Dr.), so Hipp., 
Jer., Theodt. The ocean is an appropriate symbol, (i) because 
it is a common type of the turbulent world and peoples; cf. 
Is. 17^^^-, Jer. 46^'-, Rev. 17^^ ('the waters . . . are peoples and 
multitudes and nations and tongues'); and (2) following so far 
Gunkel's lead, because the chaotic ocean is the figure of the 
domain of all that is opposed to God; hence the beasts are re- 
garded as automatically arising out of their appropriate abode, 
even as the monsters of the Bab. epic. A breath of this repug- 
nance to the abyss of waters appears in the N.T. seer's vision 
that 'there was no more sea,' Rev. 21^ The contrast is given in 
the heavenly scene, vv."^-. That by the sea is meant the earth 
is directly declared, v.^^, and in v.'* the figure passes into the 


thing signified, 'from the earth.' Were stirring up: So several 
recent comm., unconsciously following Calv.'s original sugges- 
tion; AV 'strove upon' and RV JV 'brake forth upon' represent 
the other interpretations. 

2b. ^'^'^ ^y 'IJ??] ignores; Or? Lu. = M; <g regarded ^rn = Stuvous 
as pi., which as "'2"^ is to be preferred, cf. 'visions of the night' v.^ 
For x^Si"? U-; s. on -\•^^ -n d; 4^'. — "i"^??;] So through this chap, except 
V.', where '^■^ as elsewhere, e.g., 2'', q.v. — TPV??] 05 ev^xsaov [e:?], 
© xpoa^^aXXov [d<;], 'attacked'; U piignabant [in mare magno], Ra. 
'fought with' (or, 'in midst of,' var. rdg.), AV 'strove (upon)'; the 
notion of fighting is from the Rabb. use of xjip nijx, and cf. the Heb. 
Hif. of a military operation, Ju. 20^'. Others, e.g., AEz. (eft. Job 40-^), 
Junius and Tremellius, Polanus, 'burst, rushed, broke forth upon' (so 
Dr., RV JV). Best with Calv. commouebant, Vatablus, agitabant, fol- 
lowed by Kran., Levy, Bev., al.; so the Hif. Eze. 32-, and similarly in 
JAram., Syr. This interpretation appears to have been followed in 
2 Esd. 13^, ecce de mari ventus exsnrgebat, ut conturbaret omnes fluctus 
eius. This is to be preferred as the far more natural and picturesque 
term, while S of the following noun is best explained as sign of ace, for 
which otherwise Sy would be expected. 

3. And four great beasts were coming tip out of the sea, diverse 
one from another. The symbolizing of the heathen powers with 
rapacious beasts or with mythological monsters, which become 
then often rationalized into formal tvpes, is common in the 
O.T.; e.g., Eze. 2932-, Is. 271, Ps. 68^1, 74''^-, &o'\ PsSol. 2'^ while 
an elaborate use of this symbolism appears in the vision of 
Enoch, En. 85-90. They were ascending — n.b. the vivid ppls. 
denoting the 'moving picture' — out of the sea, the spawning- 
place of such monsters; cf. the reminiscences in Rev. 13^, 2 Esd. 
11^ (the Eagle Vision; in c. 13 the sea is the origin of the Man). 
They were diverse, not in strength but in worth, so Theodt., 
vLeng., as similarly in the series of metals, c. 2. Each is suc- 
cessively meaner than its predecessor, although the last, non- 
descript beast is, like the iron of the Image, the most destructive. 
4. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings. I was seeing 
till the wings thereof were plucked off, and it was lifted up from 
the earth [= ground], and was stood upon a pair of feet like a 
man, and a man's heart was given it. The winged lion is Baby- 
lon, according to almost all who interpret these figures histori- 

7^"^ 287 

cally. The artistic background was first proposed by Herder, 
who suggested that the wall sculptures of Persepolis were drawn 
upon. Stuart (1850) remarks that "on all the ancient monu- 
ments of the East are found formae monstrosae, the s^inbols of 
dominion and of conquerors." His contemporary Hitzig first 
adduced the winged lion from Nimrud, with which we can now 
compare the tile winged lions from Babylon. The combination 
of the features of the lion and the eagle typifies the lordliest of 
animal creatures. But it is unnecessary, e.g., with Jer. and the 
host of earlier comm., to draw out the parallelism in virtues and 
vices of this and the succeeding beasts. Reference may be made 
to Pole and especially to Bochart, Hierozoicon, under the appro- 
priate titles, for those who desire to pursue such fantastic de- 
tails. The succeeding moments in the developing picture are, 
however, problems. Two quite opposite interpretations have 
been followed, which also are sometimes combined. Ace. to one 
view it is all a drama of destruction. But the very evident de- 
pendence of ' the heart of a man' upon the 'beast's heart,' 4" ^1^', 
which was later made human again, v.^^ ^^^^ , compels the exegete 
to take this as his point d'appui. The prime reference then, 
really a reminiscent aside, is to the humanization which occurred 
in Neb.'s case. This is the view of Hipp., Jephet, Stuart, Keil, 
Zock., Pusey, al., and most recent comm. Its being raised from 
the earth (ground) and stood on feet like a man, i.e., in a human 
posture, would be equivalent. The plucking of its wings, which 
gives the cue to the other interpretation, might then refer to 
the removal of the superbia of Babel, so Jer., who cites Is. 1413^- 
and Ob.-*, 'Though thou make thy nest as high as the eagle,' etc. 
Grot, aptly cites a Classical parallel to this figurative plucking 
of the wings, from Cicero, Ep. ad Attic, iv, 2, "qui mihi pennas 
inciderant nolunt easdem renasci." The humanization involves 
the elimination of heaven-vaulting ambition. Possibly the 
thought is not more than of the return from the monstrous form 
to the natural beast. The other interpretation is that of humili- 
ation or destruction, which Jer. prefers, although he refers to 
the other view. Ra. plays on the rt. mng of 'w'J^ as debilis ; Calv. 
and early Prot. comm. tr. n^'^'Jj 'removed' from the earth, 
ablata, sublata e terra, so Behr. and Pr. But why should the de- 
struction of the first of the three beasts alone be commemorated 
here ? The Jewish saga took pains to canonize Neb. as a Pagan 


saint ! Perhaps we have after all to agree with Cha.: "It must 
be confessed that the above [the first] explanation is rather 
forced, but this is owing to the combination of two really incon- 
gruous sets of ideas," i.e., with the interpolation of the theme of 
Neb. The four pass. vbs. in this v., followed by other cases be- 
low (of the Peil peculiar to early Aram.) belong to the later 
euphemistic language; in c. 4 act. pis. are so used. See on this 
pass, construction Dalman, Worte Jesu, 183, with exx. from N.T. 
and Rabb. literature, and Volz, Jiid. Esch., 6, whose judgment, 
"hier handelt niemand mehr, sondern es geht wie durch eine 
Maschine," is, however, arbitrary. The euphemistic phraseology 
was borrowed from the common diction; s. Note at 2^'. 

5. Afid behold, another beast, a second [i.e., number iwo], re- 
sejnbling a bear ; and it was raised up on one side, and it had three 
ribs in its mouth between its teeth, and so it was said [they said] 
to it, Arise, devour much flesh. The first vb., incorrectly pointed 
by M as active, is corrected to a pass., s. Note; incorrectly AV 
RV 'raised up itself.' The bear is chosen as ranking next to the 
lion in size and fierceness. The two are often grouped together 
as the most dangerous of animals, s. Hos. 13^, Am. 5^^, Pr. 28^*, 
while in i Sam. 17342- the 'lion' of the original form has the 
doublet 'or bear,' representing a later age when the lion had 
largely disappeared. For its carnivorous character cf. Is. 11^, a 
fact scientifically recorded by Aristotle, Hist, nat., viii, 5, 
oapKO(^a<yoiv^ ^oiov 'irdfji(j)a'yov (Grot.). The destructive power of 
the Medes had left its tradition; cf. Is. 13", Nahum, Jer. 5111- ^^, 
etc. The theme is expanded in the final clauses of the v. Comm. 
have come increasingly to recognize that the last two clauses 
typify the voracity of the beast; so Junius, 'frendens in omnes 
partes,' vLeng., Stu., Bev., Mar., Cha.; with Stu. the three ribs 
"constitute a large mouthful," cf. the two legs which may be 
rescued out of a lion's mouth. Am. 4^^. This gives the explana- 
tion of the much-racked 'raised up on one side.' VLeng. first 
adduced from the Bab. emblems the figure of a demi-couchant 
bull, the two legs on the near side being raised as though the 
animal were rising, and Professor Olmstead notes that the same 
device appears in Persian art. This representation appears fre- 
quently in well-known Bab. seals. The animal then is pausing 
to devour a mouthful before springing again on its prey, to 
which feat an oracular voice encourages it. The writer refers to 

7^-^ 289 

the coming overthrow of Belshazzar's kingdom. Thus a single- 
eyed interpretation of the whole v. is obtained. For attempted 
detail of the comparison between the bear and its kingdom it 
may suffice to cite the Tanna R. Joseph that this v. refers to the 
Persians, "because they eat and drink like bears and are as fat 
as bears and long-haired like bears, and restless as bears," Kidd. 
72a, Ab. Zara 2b, Meg. iia. The phrase 'raised up on one side' 
has provoked most diverse interpretations. Theodt. under- 
stands it as of loss of power, Jeph., "as soon as it was raised up 
it was overthrown." Jer. gives a current Jewish interpretation: 
"sic Hebraei interpretantur, nihil eos aduersum Israel crudele 
gessisse," i.e., aside from Israel; Ra., as on one side awaiting the 
destruction of Babel; others as on one side, or apart, in the scene, 
e.g., JDMich. The var. in AV RV 'it raised up one dominion,' 
is due to the Mass. pointing of the vb. as active and a mistaken 
understanding of the noun. Very naturally for the three ribs 
historical interpretations have been offered, but their variety 
fails in conviction. Ace. to Hipp., Jer., they represent Media, 
Persia, Babel; Bert., Media, Lydia, Babel; etc., etc. Jer. tr. 
remarkably tres ordines, and gives an extensive discussion; he 
notes one interpretation that the three represent the successors 
of Cyrus, a view similar to the one preferred by Ra., that they 
are the first three Pers. kings. Jeph. holds that they are three- 
quarters of the world, similarly Piscator, eft. 8*, and so Kliefoth: 
it did not attain 'oecumenicity.' 

6. After this I was seeing and behold, another like a leopard, 
•which had upon its back four bird's wings, and four heads had the 
least; and dominion was given to it: the Persian empire. The 
Arab, equivalent for leopard is used also of the panther and the 
tiger. The agility and intelligence of the animal (c/. Hos. 13^, 
Jer. 5^) are stressed by those comm. who see in it the figure of 
Greece and the rapid conquests of Alexander: Hipp., 'clever, 
inventful, cruel'; Theodt., ^la to raxv k. o^v k. ttolklXov; Jer., 
its swiftness; Jeph., "it haunts the gates of cities." However, 
the velocity of Cyrus' conquests is part of the Bible tradition. 
Is. 41^, 'not touching the road with his feet.' Whether the wings 
were on the back (AV RVV) or the sides (JV) depends upon the 
understanding of the orig. word. The latter position of wings 
on an animal is illustrated from the winged lion in tiles from 
Babylon. The four wings and four heads are variously inter- 


preted ace. to the identification of the empire. The four wings 
may represent extraordinary velocity (Geier, ' twice as great as 
Babylon's'), but, better, they and the four heads typify the four 
quarters of the world, ' oecumenicity ' with Klief, We might 
compare the four-headed beasts in Eze. i, indicating the exten- 
sion of the divine energy in every quarter. Cyrus in his Cylin- 
der Inscription speaks of himself as monarch of the Four Quar- 
ters. Mein.'s objection that ace. to 8* the Persian ram pushed 
west and north and south, i.e. only three-quarters, does not 
hold, for the east was Persia's original domain. Otherwise 
vLeng. (following Junius), who interprets from the four kings of 
Persia implied in ii^, so, of recent comm., Bev., Pr., Mar., Cha. 
But, with Zock., Mein., horns not heads are type of kings, cf. 
v.^'*. The traditional interpretation of this beast as Greece, since 
Hipp.'s day, identified the four heads with the four kingdoms 
of the Diadochi. For the statement that 'dominion was given 
to it' cf. 2^^, 'a third kingdom of brass, which shall rule over the 
whole earth'; aptly Mar., "Hatte das medische Reich haupt- 
sachlich nur zerstort, so war das persische da zum Regieren." 

7. Afler this I was seeing in the night visions, and behold, a 
fourth beast, dreadful and terrible and strong exceedingly ; and it 
had great iron teeth ; it was devouring and crushing, and stamping 
the residue with its feet ; and it was acting diversely from all the 
beasts that were before it ; and it had ten horns. The writer intro- 
duces this fourth beast, which is the objective of his parable, 
with special circumstance. Its identity with the iron of the 
Image in c. 2 appears explicitly in the verbal reminiscences of 
'strong as iron' and 'crushing and breaking in pieces,' cf. 2^"; 
only here the point of destructiveness is particularly pressed. 
It is a nameless and peculiarly nondescript beast ("vocabulum 
tacuit," Jer.). And Professor Olmstead suggests that the mon- 
strous sirusSu beast would have given a prototype from Bab. 
art. Similarly the monster out of the sea, Rev. 13^^-, is based 
on this apparition with the added features of leopard, bear, and 
lion. With the theory here accepted that this terrible beast is 
type of the Hellenistic age, such a judgment of that brilliant 
era appears at first sight absurd to modern thought. But this 
fearful figure meant to the Maccabaean Jew the Seleucide Hel- 
lenism which he knew, just as it might be equally applied, al- 
though with no better reason, by later interpretation, to the 

7^'^ 291 

Roman empire or its barbarous continuation, to 'Edom' (Rome) 
or Ishmael (the Saracens) by the Jewish comm., to the Turks at 
the doors of Vienna by early Prot. exegetes, or to the days 
before Antichrist, with Millenarians. In v> the 'diverse' of 
EVV has been translated 'acting diversely,' in justice to the 
ppl. of the original. In v.^^ an additional feature appears, the 
plus ' and claws of brass ' after ' teeth of iron ' ; the plus appears 
in a few Gr. mss here and is approved by some (e.g., Ew., Mar.), 
but the repetitions permit themselves much variation in details: 
so in cc. 2. 4. 

8. / was contemplating the horns, and behold, there was coming 
up another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns 
were uprooted [i.e., displaced]; and behold, eyes like human eyes 
in this horn, and a mouth speaking big things. The seer's atten- 
tion is fascinated by the horns of the beast, among which he 
observes another, small horn growing up (with correction of 
iH's aorist into a ppl., s. Note) and displacing three of its prede- 
cessors. The horn is endowed with eyes like a man and with a 
mouth. It is universally accepted that these two human traits, 
the most expressive of the individual person, interpret the little 
horn as an individual. The attribute of eyes expresses primarily 
the human personality, so Jer., "ne eum putemus iuxta quorum- 
dam opinionem, uel diabolum esse uel daemonem, sed unum de 
hominibus," and so vLeng. insists. If with most commentators, 
who find in the trait perspicacity (Grot.), cleverness, etc., we 
attempt to discover a moral implication, the best comparison 
would be with the proud eyes of Is. 2^1, 5^^, Ps. loi ^ The ' mouth 
speaking big things ' is the king in 1 1^* who ' speaks awful things ' ; 
for the phrase cf. Ps. 12^ Ob.^^, and the behavior of Sennacherib 
described in Is. 37^^ The phrase has its exegesis in Rev. 13^, 
crroixa XaXovv fieydXa k. ^Xaa(f)r) fiLa<; ; cf. the Homeric fJ-eya 
elirelv^ Od., xvi, 243 (Behr.). The historical parallel for Anti- 
ochus Epiph. is given in i Mac. i^*, ekakriaev V7repr](f)aviav 
fxeydXrjv, cf. the description of that tyrant in 3 Mac. 6^ eVa/j- 
Oivra avo/xcp Opdcrei k. yXcbo-ar] /xeyaXopi^novi, a bombastic para- 

There remains the consideration of the 'horns' in vv.''- *. The 
horn is type of aggressive strength in the O.T., e.g., i Ki. 22'^, 
Am. 6". For the horns as symbol of the Seleucide kings s. 
Babelon, Les rois de Syrie (Paris National Library, Cat. des 


monnaies grecques), pp. xviii seq. In Arab, karn is used both for 
'prince' and 'generation.' In this chap, the horns are directly 
interpreted as kings, and so also in c. 8 are either kings or 
d^Tiasties. In 8^ the 'Uttle horn' appears again. In Zech. 2 the 
four horns are prob. empires. For the former prevailing view 
that this fourth kingdom is Rome and for the consequent inter- 
pretation of the horns, s. Int., §19, c. The earliest interpretation 
of the ten horns is found in the Sibylline Oracles, 3, 381-400, 
which Hilgenfeld, Schiirer, at., ascribe to a date not later than 
140 B.C. The passage describes Antiochus Epiphanes and his 
successors. Lines 388-400 read as follows (from Lanchester's tr. 
in Charles, Apoc, 2, 385/.; the Greek original is given in Dr., p. 
98, n. 4) : 

388 "One day there shall come unexpectedly to Asia's wealthy land 
A man clad with a purple cloak upon his shoulders, 

390 Savage, a stranger to justice, fiery; for he hath exalted himself 

Even against the thunder, a mortal as he is. And all Asia shall 

have an evil yoke, 
And the drenched earth shall drink large draughts of blood. 
And even so Hades shall attend him utterly destroyed. 
By the race of those whose family he wishes to destroy 

395 By them shall his own family be destroyed. 

Yet after leaving one horn, which the Destroyer shall cut off 
From among ten horns, he shall put forth a side shoot. 
He shall cut down the warrior parent of the purple race. 
And he f he himself at the hand of his grandsons shall perish in a 
Uke fate of wart: 

400 And then shall a parasite have dominion." 

The 'ten horns' is a manifest citation of Dan. The 'stranger' 
is without doubt Antiochus. The three horns of Dan. are some- 
what illogically represented by the three violent deaths enu- 
merated. Ace. to the interpretation of Hilgenfeld, Apokalyptik, 
69/., Schiirer, GJV t„ S7Sf; followed by Dr., p. 98, n. 4, Lan- 
chester, I.e., Cha., pp. 68/., the 'one horn,' 1. 396, is Antiochus' 
son Antiochus V, who was murdered; the 'side shoot,' 1. 397, is 
Alexander Balas, who got rid of Demetrius I; he himself, 1. 399, 
was destroyed by Demetrius' sons; and the 'parasite horn,' 1. 
400, is Tr>'pho. There was no question then regarding the appli- 
cation of our prophecy within a few decades of its publication. 

The interpretation of the little horn as Antiochus is implicitly 

y3-8 293 

that of I ^lac. (toward end of 2d cent.) and 3 Mac, It 
was also that adopted by Porph\Ty, Polych. and Aph. S>t. We 
have then to look for ten kings who preceded hun, three of 
which he displaced. Almost all who accept the fourth beast as 
Greece agree on this, differing only as to the enumeration of the 
ten and the three.^ Ant. Epiph. had seven predecessors in his 
d>-nasty: Seleucus I Xicator, Antiochus I Soter, Antiochus II 
Theos. Seleucus II Callinicus. Seleucus III Ceraunus. Antiochus 
III Magnus. Seleucus I\' Philopator. The task is then to dis- 
cover three subsequent kings whom Ant. 'displaced." Some, 
Bert., a/., make these to be (i) HeUodorus Philopator's prime 
minister, who assassinated his master and aspired to the throne, 
but was frustrated by Ant.'s prompt action in returning home 
from his foreign sojourn and seizing the throne for himself; (2) 
Demetrius (later king as Soter) son of Philopator. who was hos- 
tage in Rome and whose right Ant. usurped; and (3) Ptolemy 
^'II Philometor of Eg}-pt, who made a claim on the S}Tian throne. 
But this brings in a king of another d\*nasty. Hitz., ah, ob\-iate 
this difficulty by including Alexander in the series, in which case 
the three whom Ant. 'displaced' are his brother (by natural 
cause), his rival Heliodorus, whom he got rid of, and the right- 
ful heir Demetrius, whom he displaced during his own life. An- 
other solution, confining itself to the Seleucide dynasty, accepts 
an historical tradition of another son of Philopator, whom Ant. 
caused to be put out of the way. So von Gutsclmiidt, Kleine 
Schriftcn, 2, iS6_/f., followed by Bev., Niese, Gesch., 3, 93 (with 
reff.). In any case it is hardly necessary in a Hterature which 
knew only of four kings of Persia to insist on the exact identifica- 
tion of the long S\Tian d>Tiasty. Reference may be made, e.g., 
to DeUtzsch, RE- 'Daniel,' the excursus to this chap, in Bev., 
Dr., Cha. For the counter-argument, against identification with 
the Greeks and the Seleucides, s. Pusey, Lect. iii, end, Wright, 
c. 5. Note may also be made here of the Rabb. interpretation 
of the little horn as Odenathus, the famous prince of Palm\Ta, 

> Bleek, Jbh. f. deutsche TheologU, i860, pp. 60 Jf., argued that the ten represents 
the assumed ten provinces di%-ided among as many generals of .\lexander; but s. per 
centra Pusey, pp. 155 ff., Dr.. p. loj. Comparison can then be made with the ten 
toes of the Image in c. 2, which interpretation is denied above, in discussion of 
2"-" (Dr. still wrongly compares the ten toes). Similarly Behr., who interprets the 
ten horns as a round number, t>-pifying 'die vielgespaltene Diadochenherrschaft.' 
He is right in not insisting on the exactness of the number. 


who sacked and destroyed Nehardea, seat of one of the great 
Jewish schools; s. Genesis R., c. 76, and Graetz's full discussion, 
Gesch. d. Juden^, 295, and Note 28 at end of vol. 

3. i:rf] See on n>jc v.i«.— ni p ni] Cf. siS nt 5«.— 4. With this 
V. & introduces historical captions, here 'Kingdom of the Babylonians,' 
V.' 'K. of the Medes,' v/ 'K. of the Persians,' v.^ 'K. of the Greeks,' 
v.* 'Antiochus' gloss to 'its horns,' repeated v."'. — ^'.P^] In the papp. 
both ni-iN and Nns. Grr., IS treat as fern., Xsaivot, leaena (similarly 
xdpSaXt? v.^), and Jer. makes a point of the gender in his comm. The 
noun is masc. in Syr., and the following pronouns can refer to the im- 
plied NPrn. — V^^.] Whether dual or pi. was intended is uncertain in 
view of the vexed tradition about the dual in BAram.; s. on ]^y; v.^. 
— n •^■;] Similarly 2^*, = 'until at last.' — iSibj] The vb. in the Ahikar 
papp. (APO pap. 57, 1. II = AP, 1. 169), 'I lifted up my eyes,' similarly 
the vb. = Heb. n:'j in JAram. and Syr.; hence Behr. should not insist 
on the sense 'wegschaffen.' — V^P.] M felt properly that the dual was 
necessary here to represent the biped. — '^^''P.vl] As recognized by Kau., 
§4S> 3) 5) Nold., GGA 1884, 1019, al., a survival of the ancient pass, of 
the Haf., = Arab. IV pass, 'ukimat. — 5. nj^jn i-inN] (6 jact' ocjtV SXko 
(representing both words, vs. critics !); SsuTspov = g>; Or^ Lu. e-repov 
= 19. Cf. Rev. 14* aXkoq, Seuxspog (i'YysXos. With Kamp. it is hyper- 
criticism to elide one or the other word, as do Behr., Mar., Lohr, Cha. — 
anS] OrP xij ap-/.(p, an Aquilanic (?) suggestion of the she-bear. — "'r^'T' ] 
So edd. exc. Mich, 'r^ = M^, also var. t-D; s. de R.'s extensive 
statement. The spelling "Wiv 'side,' as in the papp., 'D is later spelling. 
A Jewish interpretation (s. Buxt., Lex.) of alleged "ch tr. 'one do- 
minion,' cj. Heb. Iff? 'dominion'; this has motived not only AVmg 
but also the pointing of the following vb. But this involves the use of 
S as sign of ace. with an abs. noun, which is impossible, a point ignored 
by some comm., even Dr. Sa. tr. 'to one side.' — '"^^T-vJ It is now gener- 
ally acknowledged that ^"^^.^ as in v.^, must be read, and so some mss 
and edd., s. Gin. ad loc. The pass, was read by Grr. saxiGo, and & "B 
'stood.' The sense of M. can only be surmised. — r>'.^>!] = Heb. >'^>", 
which outside of Gen. 2-"- has mng. 'side,' etc.; hence, hke Lat. cosla, 
cf. Eng. 'coasts,' arose a common interpretation 'provinces,' etc. Bert.'s 
etymology of 'fangs' depends upon an Arab, lexicographical interpre- 
tation of daW, properly 'robust' as 'endowed with fine teeth,' s. Frey- 
tag, s.v. — nDDJ For the form s. reff. in GB, also Kon., Lgb., 2, 461, 
Brock., FG 1,333. — 6. i.-^nj] So edd.,also fJJBab^exc. Bar, n~2; allTN:] 
V.'; the variety in spelling is deliberate. See at 2''. — •'inx] <& eTjptpv 
aXXo, (B r Q OrP Lu.) Irspov 6T)ptov (al. 6. e.); but the position 
of k'xjpov proves er:p(ov secondary, cf. vv.^- ^ — HV •'-'] t:t:[voj, 

f-^ 295 

C5 corruptly Ixixetvov. — noj Sy] (5 exdivw auToO, © ixepivw aJXYJi; = 
U. Bev., Behr., Mar., Cha., Kon., Hwh. prefer mng. 'sides,' eft. Syr. 
NJJ rt. 3JJ, as & tr. here. But JAram. has 2i 'back,' rt. 33J {vs. Behr., 
who identifies the two roots), and the common prep. OJ Sj? (also ajx) 
'upon,' and does not possess the Syr. word. — tiD^r] (S^ y^-waaa, x'.e., 
liB'S; cf. v.^. — 7. NiS'iS iiina] om. — ''^7?"'"] For the nominal form 
c/. i:nS3a' 5". For the fern, ending -i cf. the regular Syr. fem. ending 
-yd to nouns in -an, s. Nold., SG §71, i; cf. fem. nnx. A var. 'J'""?? 
occurs, s. Gin. RV 'powerful' follows a late, erroneous etymology 
from Arab, matana 'be strong,' e.g., Rosen. — r\-\^r'>] Adv., s. at 3"-. — 
V.IV] Du^ of the two jaws, as also in Heb. — ]2-iai] © om., Or? c Lu. 
suppl. [AsyciXot. To this 34 h*^^- "'* plus ol ovuxsq auToO xakv-ol, 
from v.'^— ^i^nc] S. Kau., §46, 3, b; Mich., Kit. "P"^°.— xixt:'] (g 
7,uxX(p, and so vv.'-- ", apparently a paraphrase, s. Blud., p. 41. — 
^t}^?] Pa. ppl.; it is distinguished from P,^';' v.^ as rather verbal, and 
so en correctly Stayopw? ^pcofXEvov; © adds exeg. plus [Staipopov] 
■rcspiaffd)?, to mark out the peculiar difference of this beast. Also Or^ 
Sii^epev notes the verbal force. — 8. ''■^] S. on nx v.^ — h^DZ'i:] = 
'gaze at for self, contemplate,' cf. Behr., Dr.; Sri:' here in its orig. sense, 
as also in Targ., Sam., e.g., Targ. Gen. 3^. Cf. a similar phrase. Acts ii^ 
(& has the unexplained rendering of the vb., x. ^ouXal icoXXai. — "'"ins pp] 
<& a doublet, iStXXo (= inx) ev (= ins) xipa?, so v.'°. — ^T^-] = Heb. 
'^''"l; prob. diminutive form, hiilail, s. Brock., VG i, §137; this the only 
instance in BAram., but several cases in Syr., s. Nold., SG §112. — 
^\t!P\ So M. demands with anomalous -^, but v.^" normal ^PS^^. Torrey 
again explains, Notes, II, 233, by his theory of alternative vocalization, 
the var. = ppl. ^R:?. But I am inclined to think that the fem. ppl. 
form ^P^9 was original; s. Note on mnx 5". The careful Or^ un- 
derstood a ppl. with dvspatvsv vs. © dcvs^T]. — ji.T'ra Kt., r'?T? Kr., 
also MSS jn^j^a] See on pnjo 2". — npynx Kt., '^T^-H^ Kr.] See on 
ipDJ 5^. (S e^T)0(ivOT)aav, explained by Scharfenberg, cited in Hav., 
and Nestle, Marg., 40, as a corruption of £^Tj6T;aotv, Nestle comparing 
the interchange of the two Gr. vbs. in Jer. 28^^ etc. — r\>r:-fp jc] With 
Ehr., 'um ihm Platz zu machen,' cf. 2 Sa. 715.— rr>:] The dual V.r> 
is to be expected for a man's eyes, cf. pSji v.S so pjtt'. pjip v.''. 
Kau.'s suggestion that the pi. is reasonable because the number of eyes 
is a reserved question, §51, i, hardly stands; however, M. may have 
understood a monstrous number of eyes like the beasts in Eze. i ; but 
they are qualified as 'human eyes,' and cf. v.^. In general the dual early 
became obsolete in Aram, and so exceptional in the tradition of BAram. 
{e.g., r?J V.*); it was lost in Syr. and appears in the Targ. only in 
literal renderings from Heb., s. Dalman, Gr. §38, a. — ^^\^\ Var. '?! 
Mich., Gin. mg. — At end of v. (S, followed by Lu. and a few mss, plus 


/.. Ixofst tc6Xs|j.ov xpb<; t. dyfou? = v.^', but not verbally. Cha. would 
add it here; Ew. regards it as remnant of a lost passage. 

9-14. The Great Assize. 9. 10. The Judge and his court. 

9 . / was seeing 

Till thrones were placed : and an Ancient sat; 

His raiment like white snow : and the hair of His head 

like pure wool ; 
His throne flames of fire : and its wheels burning fire; 

10. A river of firefiowing : and corning forth from His pres- 

ence ; 
Thousand thousands serving Him : and myriad myriads 

standing before Him. 
The court sat : and the books were opened. 

The first and last Hues are dimeters, the others trimeters. 

In contrast with the chaos of Great Ocean, its hurricanes and 
portentous monsters, appears the august vision of God come 
to judgment. The scenery belongs to the treasury of the O.T., cf. 
I Ki. 22^3 '^•, Pss. 51. 82, Joel 4, etc. But it possesses its own orig- 
inal characteristic, which has become the classical model for all 
subsequent apocalyptic scenes of like order. Bousset remarks 
congenially: "In vollkommener Reinheit ist dieses erhabene Bild 
[of the great judgment] bereits von Dan. gezeichnet (7^'^^). 
Nicht immer tritt es in der judischen Apokalyptik in dieser 
Kraftigkeit und Klarheit heraus" {Rel. d. Jud., 295). To this 
section in Bousset and to Volz, Jiid. Esch., 188^., reference may 
be made for the Apocalyptic parallels, amongst which those in 
Rev. are particularly dependent upon our passage. It is not so 
said until v.^^ — for titles are not necessary to these dramatic 
pictures — but the scene is in heaven, the calm abode of God 
('a sea of glass,' Rev.) in contrast to the chaos. 'Thrones were 
placed': i.e., sedilia, which constitute, as appears later, the judi- 
cial bench. (See Note for the erroneous 'cast down' of AV.) 
The pi. is not to be stressed, for only One took his seat. Cf. 
'thrones for judgment,' Ps. 122^ Jewish and Christian comm. 
have busied themselves to discover who the assessors were. An 
ancient interpretation is that in the Parables of Enoch (En. 37- 
71), which makes the Elect One, the Son of Man, the assessor 
of Deity, e.g., 45'. This doubtless had its influence on the N.T. 
thought of the judgeship of the Christ, and so Akiba understands 

7'- ■» 297 

two thrones, one for God and one for David (Hag. 14a, Sank. 
38J). Or the assessors are the elders of Israel ace. to Tanhuma 
{Way., 366, ed. Buber), with which may be compared the prom- 
ise of Jesus to his apostles that they should sit, along with him 
on his throne of glory, on twelve thrones judging the twelve 
tribes of Israel, Mt. 19-*. Ace. to Rev. 20* the saints shall sit 
upon the 'thrones' and judgment be given them. Or they are 
angels, so Jer., who eft. the 24 thrones in Rev. and the 'thrones, 
dominions,' etc., of Col. i^^ (this personification in Test. Levi 3^, 
2 En. 20^) ; so Calv., and Grot., who likens them to the satraps 
of the Pers. court. DEnv. thinks of the Faces, the Persons of 
the Trinity. The angels would be the most likely interpretation, 
cj. 4^^, 'the decree of the Vigilants and the word of the holy 
ones.' Yet better Maldonatus: "Thronos dicit in plur. quia 
maior auctoritas sanctiorque maiestas repraesentatur." At the 
most the assessors would be the recorders who opened the books 
and inscribed the decisions. Such is the interpretation of the 
earliest citation of the passage. En. 90^° (Cha.'s tr.) : 'And I saw 
till a throne was erected in the Pleasant Land, and the Lord of 
the sheep sat Himself thereon and all [ Cha. corrects the text to 
*the other,' i.e., Michael] took the sealed books and opened the 
books before the Lord of the sheep.' For the Jewish reff. s. 
Schottgen, Horae, 1, 1104, Weber, Jiid. Theologie, 164, Dalman, 
Worte Jesu, 201, Volz, p. 260, Bousset, p. 295. 

The Deity is represented as an old personage, and similarly 
the picturing of Zeus in Hellenic art. The usual tr., 'an ancient 
of days' (erroneously AV 'the Ancient of days') is striking be- 
cause of its unique sound. Comm. generally take it at once to 
be a euphemistic term for God, indicating his eternal existence 
(Stu. as a superlative, 'the most ancient'), and eft. such titles 
as 'enthroned of old,' Ps. 55^0; or contrast is made to 'new 
gods,' e.g., Ju. 58, and esp. to the new gods of Hellenism (so 
Mein.). But Dr. appears to be alone in remarking that the 
orig. term merely means an 'old man'; only the process of the 
vision reveals who is referred to. The phrase means exactly 
'advanced in days,' = Lat. aetate prouectus (Cicero, De seneet., 
iii, 10), EngUsh 'advanced in years.' It is identical with the 
Heb. phrase 'come-on in years,' Gen. 24^ (EVY erroneously 
'stricken in years'); and our phrase appears fairly often in Syr. 
literature, s. Note. Dalman, Worte Jesu, 194, overworks the 


phrase in comparing it with 'like a son of man,' v.", as 'eine 
ebensowenig prosaische Schreibart.' Cha. desires to amend into 
' one like an ancient being ' (p'^Dys), following similar expressions, 
but there is no reason to think that the prep, of comparison 
could easily have dropped or been edited out. The apparition 
of the Person is in shining white, his hoary hair betokening his 
venerableness, while the white vesture indicates unsullied maj- 
esty, always the dress of notables, and so of the denizens of 
heaven, e.g., of angels, Mt. 28^ (an unobserved citation of 
here), of the saints in heaven. Rev. 3^, etc., and frequently in Jew- 
ish literature (s. vLeng.'s full note) ; we may compare the ermine 
of a modern justiciary. The seer's glance drops down to the more 
bearable features of the circumstances of the vision, w.^''- i°* 
(cf. Is. 6). The proper element of Deity is fire with its effluence 
of light, cf. Ex. 32, Dt. 4^\ 33^, i Tim. 6'\ Heb. la^^, etc.; there 
is no compelling reason, with Bert., Meyer, al., to seek for Parsee 
influence; s. also Int., §20. Cf. inter al. En. i/\}^^- for an expan- 
sion of the present scene. The flaming throne and its wheels 
coursing like a river of fire are to be compared with the vision 
of the Merkabah in Eze. i. The curule chairs of ancient mon- 
archs and of Roman consuls have been compared with these 
wheeled thrones (so Grot.), but the figure belongs to a common 
stock of tradition coming down from Eze. The river of fire which 
drew forth from the divine presence denotes the irresistibility of 
the divine energy. Comparing Ps. 50'', 'a fire devouring before 
him,' = 97^, this fiery stream also executes the divine herem, and 
there is a point to the feature in the subsequent destruction of 
the beast 'in fire,' v.".i Then the seer observes the myriads {cf. 
Dt. 33^, Ps. 68'^) of the ministering ones, standing in position 
as do courtiers before their monarch (s. at i*); it is the court of 
heaven, where, as always in the Bible {e.g., i Ki. 22^^), God is 
never alone. 

1 Meyer, Ursprung, 68, 199, etc., insists on the background to this picture of the 
Parsee notion of a river of molten metal at the end of the world. The chief passage 
in question is in the Bundahis, xxx, 19. 20 (West, SBE vol. 5): "The fire and halo 
melt the metal of Shatvairo ... it remains on this earth like a river. Then all men 
will pass into that melted metal and become pure; when one is righteous, then it 
seems to him just as though he walks continuouslj' in warm milk: when wicked then 
... as though ... in melted metal." And ace. to v. 31 the serpent (? — the word 
is uncertain) is burned in the molten metal. The writer does not think that this 
parallelism, drawn from an actually late document, is very convincing for Parsee 
influence upon Dan. The Parsee fire, it should be observed, is for purgation, not for 
destruction; in the end all souls will be purged by fire. 

f' '' 299 

The seer's eye at last returns from these stupendous circum- 
stances to the opening of the assize: The court sat, for which the 
original has literally 'the judgment sat'; the abstract passes 
into the concrete, as is the case with Kptr^ptov (so ^ here), 
"B uidicium sedit (= Cicero, Verr., ii, i8), i^ovaiat = apxovre^ 
Rom. 13^^-, etc. And books were opened: Current court proce- 
dure naturally colors the picture; Medus eft. the process of the 
Sanhedrin, Grot, the Pers. conclaves; the Pers. monarchs, 
through their spy system, made note of every petty detail of 
their provinces (Rawlinson, SGM 'Fifth Mon.,' c. 3, notes 334 
jf.). But the idea of divine books is as old as human writing. It is 
found in the ancient Egyptian religion, in the Babylonian with 
the 'tables' of sins and of good works (KAT 402), and equally 
in the O.T., Is. 65^, Jer. 171, Mai. s'^ (pn^T nSD), Ps. 56^; in 
the N.T., Lu. lo^o, Rev. 20'^ (citing this v.), etc. For this con- 
stant theme in Apocalyptic and Rabb. literature s. Volz, Jiid. 
Esch., 266, Bousset, Rel. d. Jiid., 295^., Cha. on En. 47^; n.h. 
Pirke Aboth, ii, i, 'Know what is above thee — a seeing eye and 
a hearing ear, and all thy deeds written in a book.' Bev. eft. sl 
passage in the Pagan Arab, poet Zuhair: "Hide not from God 
what ye devise . . .; it is reserved, laid up in writing, and kept 
in store against the day of reckoning" (ed. Ahlwardt, xvi, 26/.). 
The Fathers moralize: Theodt., /3//3\ou9 r. fxvqfxa^ /caXel- Jer., 
" conscientiae et opera singulorum . . . reuelantur." Mar. ob- 
serves that not only the past records but also the decisions were 
entered into these books, cf. 4'*. 

9. 'ji n nj; n^n ntn] Introducing the denouement, cf. 2'*. — P,P1;] 
For the internal -a- s. on Nnms 6'. The pi. = 'the bench,' cf. 
D-im^n ySn 'interpreter of the court' in the Cyprian inscr. CIS i, 44 = 
Lidz., NE p. 420, Cooke, NSI no. 15.— '''"1] Grr. hiQr,a!xv = S> H. 
The identical phrase also Targ. Jer. i'^, imois laj jiDii = Heb. ijnj 
1ND3 t:'^x, etc.; also ncn 'lay a tax,' Ezr. 7"''. Cf. Akk. ramil subtii, 'found 
a dwelling,' similarly the freq. Syr. larmttd, 'foundation,' i.e., 'creation' 
of the world = Hellenistic xaxaPoXr), Polyb., Bibl. Gr., etc. This rt. 
mng. appears in the name in''r:T', s. Cornill at Jer. i^ Cf. Heb. nT>, 
both 'throw,' and 'lay foundation,' Job 38*; this development appears 
in 'cast up a cairn,' Gen. 31^'; GB eft. ^aXXeaGat acjTu, fundamenta 
iacere. Sachau's proposed rdg. in APO pap. 56, 1. 8, nndi^ pi, cannot 
stand, s. Cowley ad Inc. The tr. of AV 'were cast down' goes back to 
the Jewish comm. (also Polanus, Geier, etc.), who interpreted it by 


^h'a^n 'were removed,' Ra., AEz.; or uWm 'were cast down,' PsSa.; 
Sa., 'cast away,' so Jeph., the thrones being understood as those of the 
beasts. Hav. eft. the Koranic name of God, du l-'ars, xvii, 44, Ixxxv, 15. 
— r?"" P''P]?] In general s. Comm.; = pDia Na Gen. 24^ For the syn- 
tax cf. GK §128, 3, Nold., SG §205, A. The correspondent xsxaXott- 
tofjilve •Jjtxspwv )(.axwv appears in Sus.", while the identical phrase occurs 
in Syr.; e.g , Wis. 2", Ecclus. 25* (translating 'old man'); also the pi. 
freq. in Aphraates, e.g., Dem., xxii, 8, while Torrey adduces a case from 
John of Ephesus; Sa. tr. by ^aih, 'old man.' The adj. did not primarily 
mean 'old,' requiring a specifying addition; but it appears with that 
mng. in i Ch. 4-- and also in JAram., Syr. I note Arab, musinnu s-samd'l, 
'the ancient of heaven,' in the 'Aghdni, Lammens, Riwdydt al-Aghdnt, 
I, 105, 1. 7. The term is cited at times in the Talm., s. Lexx. It becomes 
'the head of days,' in Enoch, e.g., 46'. While Ra. identifies the Ancient 
with God, Jeph. finds in him an angel, and AEz. Michael. Hipp, has 
an ingenious comment: xbv icaXatoOvTa laq ^[Kig<xc„ oux, auxJ)v uicb 
Xp6vwv ri ■?)[X£p(I)v xaXaiouiAEVov. — spj -\c;JD . . . iin jShd] M con- 
strues the adj. with the prec. noun in each case, but sv5u[jLa . . . 
tbasl xtwv Xsuxov, 6pf^ . . . wasl eptov xa6ap6v = IS AV RV, and so 
most comm.; this is inconsequent and so Mar., 'weiss wie Schnee,' 'rein 
wie Wolle.' But there is no reason to abandon iH's construction, which 
is followed by Bev., Behr., JV. (6 om. 'white,' which appears to have 
been glossed into the second clause sptov Xsuxbv xaOapov. En. 46^ 
and Rev. i''', to which Cha. appeals for revision of the text, are inexact 
and incomplete citations. — ^\^-\] Kau., §47, g, f, as pass, ppl., but 
Earth., Nh., §10, c, as katil. — ]i33'^] See at f-. — pSi mj ^mSjSj] lu 
masc. as at 3"^ Orig. (S om. the clause. The Hex. insertion of it was 
accompanied by a revision of the following clause, v.'", plus ■zQia[Lhc, 
xupb^ I'Xxwv, which then became a partial doublet to orig. (S, v.. e^sxo- 
peusTo . . . izozoit^hc, xupo?. — 10. iiJ n inj] Mythologized by later 
fancy into the river Dinur, the fiery stream from which issued the 
ephemeral angels, Hagiga 14a; s. Weber, Jiid. Theologie, 166. — li^] 
Arab. = 'sweat,' Syr., JAram. 'flow,' in Pesh. = Heb. 21T (Syr. also 
with other mngs., e.g., 'draw,' trans, and intrans.). The latter pictur- 
esque sense may be retained here. — •■'mmp ]d] vLeng. 'from it,' the 
throne, and so En. 14^', cf. Rev. 4*, 22'; but the prep. = 'from in front 
of,' 'from his presence' (not 'out of him' !) = Heb. vjdSd. — n^flSx Kt.] 
Kr. l>£3Sx is desiderated.— p:n Kt., ???"! Kr.] The Kr. thinks of Heb. 
"?r=; read Kt. ?I?1 = Syr.; s. Kau., §65, 4, Nold., SG §148, D.— 
njWDtj'''] dSi eOspi-rceuov, © IXsitouyouv; the latter in N.T. exclusively 
of liturgical service; cf. Test. Levi 3^, ol ayyeXXot . . . ol XetToupyouvxec; 
X. s^tXaax6[j,£vot xpi? xijptov, and s. Cha.'s note there, i Clem, 34, 
Justin, Try ph., 31, Iren., Haer., ii, 6, 2, have 0's rdg. These and later 
Fathers (s. Lightfoot on Clem.), following Rev. 5", transpose the two 

7"- 12 30I 

clauses 'thousand thousands' and 'myriad myriads.' — Jiam^] Masc. 
with fem. subj., xaxd auvsutv, s. Kau., §98, i, b. N.b. the Ml clauses 
with vb. at end.— ^'?1 ^T"!] = 'the court sat,' cf. v.^^; Bev. eft. use of 
TiD for a deliberative body. Grot. eft. the Jewish in n>3. g> daiydnd, 
'judge.' Kran.'s 'zum Gericht setzte er sich' is unnecessary, if not im- 
possible in Aram, syntax. 

11 . 12 . The execution of the divine sentence. 11 . I was see- 
ing from the time of the utterance of the big words which the horn 
was speaking, I was seeing even till the beast was slain, and its 
body destroyed, and it [the beast] was given to the burning of fire. 
See Note for revision of the usual tr. of opening of the v., ace. 
to which the repeated ' I was seeing ' gives much debated trouble. 
The words 'from the time of,' lit. 'then from' (EW 'at that 
time because of) are here treated as the starting-point of the 
seer's observation of the horn's big words, continued even into 
the scene of judgment, to the point of ('till') its destruction. 
The tr. is at least less awkward than the current one, for which 
many comm. help themselves out by the elision of ' I was seeing' 
1° or 2°. Dramatic indeed is the immediate passage of the great 
scene into the execution of the sentence; it recalls the katastrophe 
of the Lord's parable: 'the rich man also died and was buried. 
And in hell,' etc., Lu. 16^2 f- This observation disposes of Gun- 
kel's categorical criticism (Schopfung, 324, n. i) that v.^ is 
'mutilated.' It is held by vLeng., anticipated by PsSa. and fol- 
lowed by Stu., Keil, dEnv., Cha., that the fire is the eternal tor- 
ment of hell. Comparison is made with the kindred idea in Is. 
66^^, and with the hell of fire in Rev. ig^", 2oi°-". Cha. adduces 
the reff . in Enoch to the place of fire where the fallen angels were 
cast, lo^ 1811, 21^^-, 90^4 ^•, all but the last of which passages 
he holds to be older than our text. Even if this point be true, 
it does not condition the interpretation here; it would be absurd 
to think of that beast, abstraction of an empire, being cast into 
hell-fire, while the one reference to future punishment in our 
book, 11^, has no allusion to hell. So in general Dr. It is suffi- 
cient, with Mar., to compare Is. 30^^ and to identify 'the fire,' 
if needs be, with the fiery stream from the divine presence; so 
Zock. 12. And the rest of the beasts — their dominion was taken 
away, and prolongation in life was given them till a time and tide. 
The natural implication of 'the rest of the beasts' is that of the 
other three, surviving after the destruction of the fourth beast. 


See the arguments of Stu. and Dr. in support of this view. The 
destruction of the other beasts had not been narrated ; they con- 
tinue in some condition of survival after the destruction of the 
fourth beast, which cuhninated in the httle horn; cf. the figure 
of the image in c. 2 : " The entire image remains intact until the 
stone falls upon the feet . . . , when the whole of it breaks up 
together" (Dr.). The v. is then anticipative of v.". The ex- 
pected superiority of Israel did not at once imply the destruc- 
tion of all other political forms in the world ; it was a supremacy 
more like that expected by Ezekiel, with the possibility of the 
final rise and onslaught of Gog and Magog (so Ra. here), or 
later of the Antichrist. Calv. held that the vb. — a plupf., the 
prophet reverting to an omitted detail. Mein. insists properly 
on the contrast between the fates of the fourth and the other 
three beasts, the former so terrible, and similarly Mar., who 
points out that the vision is meant as prophetic, both holding 
that they had ceased before the fourth beast. But these scholars 
do not explain the item of ' the prolongation' of their life. Behr., 
who holds that the ten horns are not the successive Seleucide 
kings but the various parts of the Hellenistic empire, thinks 
that the figure has changed, the horns have become beasts. 
But to the composer the little horn is the climax of the fourth 
beast, its final expression, and horn with beast is destroyed. In 
the tr. ' till a time and tide ' the latter old English word, = ' time,' 
has been used to express the identity of the two terms; GV 
'Zeit und Stunde,' Behr., 'Zeit und Frist'; cf. Acts i' and v. sup. 
2". The idea is that of a fixed fate; cf. the writer's note on nj? 
in Ecc. = fate, JBL 1924, 243. 

11. T^-^^ri nin . . . niin r\:r>] The repetition of the vb. and the unique 
use of fixa after its vb. ace. to usual translations (but vs. accents of 
M) has induced critical operations. (S om. niin. ntn 2°, and so Bert., 
Rosen., Blud., Cha. delete it. Behr. deletes n''in nrn 1°, against which 
view s. Kamp., Mar. But read: 'I was beholding then from (the time 
of) the sound ... I was beholding until,' etc., i.e., taking piN'a and 
10 as correlative. In this interpretation I have been anticipated by 
Piscator, Klief. All other comm. understand p as 'because of.' Note 
that p inx3 = Heb. '??, which is used as prep, and with a vb. as = 
'since.' The sentence is awkward, but is no anacoluthon, as with some. 
— «'^l?nn] So Bar, Str., Gin.; ^^^^o^ Mich., Kit.; s. on ^i^^.? y.-'—^±\\ 
For the form s. on ^'^l 2^\ '"^l!.? 41*; cf. Heb. ^?1-'. attempts here a 

7l3. 14 ^^^ 

logical sequence: 'and it perished and its body was given.' In (S nS^Dp 
= i-!toTU(ATcaviff6T) 'was bastinadoed to death' (also 3 Mac. 3-'') — a 
touch of malice? — n-^'n] Abs., = ^t^'^• in papp. 

13. 14. The vision of the humanlike one and the dominion 
given to him. 

13. / was seeing in the night visions, 

And behold with the clouds of heaven : one like a man 

was coming, 
And to the Ancient he came : and before him he was 


14 . A nd to him was given dominion and glory and sovereignty : 

With all peoples, nations and tongues serving him; 
His dominion an everlasting dominion not to pass away : 
And his sovereignty not to be destroyed. 

So for the metre Mar.; v." consists of long stichoi with a 
short final hemistich. 

Again a fresh introduction for this final moment of consumma- 
tion of the scene; cf. v.''. The seer beholds, wafted in the upper 
atmosphere with a nimbus of cloud, a human figure coming (AV 
ignores the climax of the syntax of the original); he comes to 
(lit. 'arrives at') the Ancient, he is presented before him, as is 
the custom in royal courts, and to him is then given universal 
and everlasting dominion. 

There is no reason with some to prefer the tr. of 0^ 'upon the 
clouds'; Hi is vouched for by ' pre-Theodotionic ' rdgs. of the 
N.T. and Fathers; s. Note. Behr. eft. II., v, 867, where Ares is 
pictured as ascending to heaven ofiov vec^eeacrLV. There is a 
reminiscence of this passage in i Th. 4I', 'with them we shall 
be snatched up in the clouds to the meeting with the Lord in 
the air ' (in contrast to the usual Messianic interpretation of our 
v. in the N.T.). The clouds are in contrast to the chaos of 
waters — the Kingdom of Heaven opposed to the kingdoms of 
this world. It is a question how far we may press the nuances 
contained in the clouds; as with Dr., 'superhuman state and 
majesty,' or possibly swiftness of motion. Position upon the 
clouds, which the writer avoids, would rather be the attribute 
of Deity, e.g.. Is. 19^ Ps. 104^, and his enthronement upon the 
cherubs. The contrast of the human being lies with both the 
Ancient and the beasts: God, man, beast, cf. Ps. 8. The pass. 


'he was presented' (JV 'he was brought near') is the proper 
rendering of the Aram, idiom of the act. pi.; cf. v.^ and Note at 
2^^ The idea is that of a royal audience; cf. the identical "|T13"lp 

i"'1KniD mp, 'I presented thee before Sennacherib/ ^PO pap. 

50, 1. 2 (= AP Ahikar, 1. 50), cf. 1. 6; also n^nS ^:S^ Q^Sf^'l, EVV 

'presented tliem,' Gen. 47^ There follows in v." the description 
of the viceregal investiture of the humanlike being. For the 
attribution of dominion and glory and sovereignty, cf. the 
similar terms used of Neb.'s imperial power, 4^^, 6^*. The v. de- 
pends with its expression of an eternal and incorruptible king- 
dom upon 2*^, q.v. for discussion of "ID^D 'sovereignty,' EVV 'a 
kingdom.' For the standing phrase 'all peoples,' etc., cf. 3*, 
etc. For the vb. 'serve,' used of both human and divine service, 
s. at 3" Note; inf. v.^^ the people of the saints are the object of 
this service. Comm., who insist that the vb. implies a divine 
object, e.g., Keil, are in the wrong, as Zock. acknowledges. For 
the interpretation of the 'Son-of-man,' s. Note at end of the 

13. •'ny Djj] oy of accompaniment {cf. dj? of time, v.^). So \i.zz^ 
Twv ve9eXwv = Mk. 14^^ {cf. Harris, Testimonies, 2, 76, for suggestion 
of a basic Targum here), Rev. i' (the balance of the v. a non-Septua- 
gintal citation), 2 Esd. 13', and so Just. M., Tryph., 31 = H. (6 Q exl 
T. V. = Mt. 245°, 26", Rev. 14"- " = Just. M., ApoL, 51 Ixivw = Didache 
16, and so B. Other citations have sv, Mk. 13-^ (D s-rct), Lu. 2". The 
early Lat. texts vary, with cum (so Lucif., prob. OLat.), in, super, all 
being found in Tert., s. Burkitt, Old Latin, 22. The accumulation of 
rdgs. by no means justifies Nestle {Marg., 40) and Dalman {Worte Jesu, 
198) in their arbitrary preference for the rdg. of d. — ^i^, ""^r] 3 retains 
its original nominal character as 'the like of; s. BDB, GB (otherwise 
Kon., Lgb., ii, i, 279). For Heb. cf. the use in Eze. i^', etc.; for Arab. 
ka = mill, s. Wright, Gr. 2, §63. Cf. mnno iqI^ — ><p, "D?! For use of 
mn with ppl. s. Kau., §76, 2, f. After ''"^t? the vb. is otiose, and recalls 
the similar use in Syr. (S t^px^to, Ipx^fJ-evos, OrC Lu. + ■^v. Or? -(- 
auTb? •^v, i.e., an Aquilanic interpretation as of s'-in. Just. M., Tryph., 
31, epx6[JLevo(; x. ■^XOsv = 1C (Cj^r., Lucif., Aug.) ueniens tienit, com- 
bination of CS and 0? — nidii pipj; iy] (B w? ■KoXaibq •fjfi.spwv, ancient 
error for su? %. t]., but pre-Christian, as citation of it in Rev. i" shows; 
s. the writer's article in Expositor, Sept., 1921, 214. Bousset, Rel. d. 
Jtid., 303, cites this as a Septuagintal notion of a pre-existent Mes- 
siah, but it is accidental. — inrnpn ininip] (& ol xapea-noxoTeg xapiiaav 
auTy, the method of which mistranslation is patent. In texts B 

7"- " 305 

130 (r?) TCpoa-rjxOT] aixw, al. xpoaTf]vix6Tj, which is supported by Lucif., 
oblatus est ei, the vb. being apparently interpreted sacrificially as in 
Ezr. 6i°- 1', /IPO pap. i, 1. 25 (AP no. 30). Or^ OrC (106 A al.) Lu. 
Ivcoxtov aJTou •^upoaTjvix^T). A variant appears in A 26 evwirtov ajToO 
irpoaTjyayov ajTov, which is supported by Just. M., Try ph., 31, xpoaifj- 
yayov otJirbv = Tert., Jif. Marc, iii, 7 addu.xerunt eiim (s. Burkitt, 0/i 
Latin, 22. 27 ff.). With Burkitt this rdg. appears to be a revision of the 
faulty (S, not a variant of 0. The same rdg. appears in (]Ss™k, which 
Swete reverts into i^yytl^ov, but rather = xpoffTjyayov. Which was the 
original one of the rdgs. it is difficult to decide; either is a possible tr., 
and either may be a corruption of the other. — 14. ^^^l] & H as though 
^'^\; s. at vP. — id'^ci i,-'''! y^hz'] 05 s^ouat'a, Hex. plus y.. xqi-f) paat- 
XtxT); just below a misplaced gloss x. xaaa So^ot. C/. Mt. 28^* sooOt) 
[jLot iraua e^ouai'a, y.xX., a citation ignored by N.T. edd. — n''J'.1'Si] Or^-C 
Lu. Q om. conj. — jihSd'] Hal construction of purpose; similar cases, 
v.'^ bis ; these to be added to cases cited in Kau., §73, 3, b, Mar., Gr. 
§130. This use of the impf. appears in Arab., s. Wright, Gr. 2, p. 26, 
D; also in Heb., e.g., Jer. 5-^ B A 35 49 90 232 c SouXeuouatv, al. 
SouXeuffoufftv = ds. 

15-27. Daniel's anxiety and the interpretation of the vision. 
15. As for me Daniel, my spirit was anxious on account of this, 
while the visions of my head were troubling me. The emphasis on 
the first person is not due to the pseudonymous habit, with 
vLeng.; it marks the break in the vision when the seer comes 
to himself. The vb. rendered 'was anxious' {cf. a similar phrase, 
2^) has been variously interpreted, e.g., 'was horrified,' U 
Bert.; 'was grieved,' Aph. Syr. (for the woes threatened to 
Israel), contristatus , deDieu, or contritus fuit, Calv., and so AV 
RW; 'was pained,' Dr., JV. The vb. however has the sense of 
being 'short' in spirit, and means constraint, impatience, anxi- 
ety, and the like. This oppression is the motive which makes 
the seer bold to accost one of 'the assistants.' Cf. the similar 
phrase in 2 Esd. 3^^, excessit cor meum. On the other hand. Rev. 
5*, sometimes adduced as a parallel, implies grief. The tr. 'on 
account of this,' in place of the traditional 'in the midst of my 
body' (EVY), is obtained by a slight change and shifting of the 
Aram, letters, is supported by ^ and accepted by many mod- 
erns; s. Note. For the final clause cf. 4^, etc. 16. I approached 
one of the Attendants to ask him the surety concerning all this ; 
and he said to me that he woidd make me know the interpretation 

of the things. The usual rendering, 'one of them that stood by,' 


ignores the force of the ppl. of the Aram.: 'the standing ones/ 
i.e., those who were in attendance on the heavenly monarch; 
the term is taken from court hfe, s. Note at i^. Cf. Hipp., iv, 
8, "the angels who stand before the Glory." The interpreter 
angel appears in Eze. 40-48, Zech. 1-7, the later cc. of this book, 
I En., Test. XII Patr., Jubilees, 2 Baruch, 2 Esd. (Cha.); in 
the earlier prophecy God himself spoke, and yet there was from 
early times the mediation of 'the Angel.' The second part of 
the V. gives a revision of the usual rendering, which is awkward ; 
s. Note. 

15. nnsHN] S. Kau., p. 81, §2; mll'el accent is to be expected, cf. 
mrjnn 2^^. The dagh. in i represents -t-, cf. ^'^■"'?P > ^';?i'. The vb. 
= etymologically Heb. ixp {cf. Pesh. Mt. 24--), used of mental impa- 
tience, anxiety, and so here Ken.'s Heb. MS, n-isp. — Sn^jt n:^] For the 
abs. pron. cf. Ezr. 7-'; so in the papp. njx nh >h>i APA B, 1. 8, and I. 9, 
njx >ni3; cf. njNi ]njii t>3 in the pap. in PSBA 1907, 260 f. = AP 
no. 81, 1. 14; for the same use in Heb. s. GK §135, 2, e.g., inf. 8'- ^°. — 
—■r\p,\ X1J3] So Mich., Gin., Str., Kit.; Bar ^}M, s. his note. The 
traditional and still dominating explanation connects njnj with M,) 
'sheath,' i Ch. 21^', also in the Targums, a word of Sanskrit origin {cf. 
also Tisdall, JQR 2, 367); so the Jewish and early Prot. comm., Bux- 
torf, Kau., p. 94, top, Nold., GGA 1884, 1022, Mein., Bev., Behr., 
Kamp., Pr., Dr., Kon., Hwh. Sa. tr. 'in my body.' This interpretation 
requires a radical change of punctuation (orig. = nidlidna), while the 
final vowel is variously treated as a suffix (s. Kau., Kamp.). Two 
Rabb. passages, e.g., Sank. io8a, 'lest their soul should return to its 
sheath' njij (s. Rabb. Lexx.), as is often admitted, may merely de- 
pend upon the interpretation of the present passage. A parallel is found 
by some in Job 27', and Polanus has compared Pliny, Hist. Jiat., vii, 53, 
"donee cremato eo remeanti animae uelut uaginam ademerint." Pref- 
erable is the explanation apparently first advanced by Capellus, fol- 
lowed by Bert, and, of recent comm., dEnv., Jahn, Mar., Ehr., Cha., 
BDB, GB, that the phrase is a corruption of ^p Vi^- V>^ = 'on 
account of in JAram., e.g., Targ. Yer. Gen. 12". I note Syr. ]i2 used 
similarly, Wright, Apoc. Acts, 215, 1. 19. Torrey, Notes, I, 282, prefers 
rdg. pj2 (= JAram. jua, s. Dalman, Gr. 221, 226/., 239), with origin 
from Pers. gon, 'color,' of which gen as here would be a variant. (S» 
apparently agrees with this modern interpretation in ev toutois (=11 
in his), along with a doublet sv xqi bg6nL(XTi ir^q vuxt6<;; Iv Tfj e^si [j.ou, 
by which noun tr. in 7-', so supporting Torrey's derivation. This 
understanding of is better than that of Bert.'s, who cfl. •"''i-' = .\ 
e^is Jud. 14^. Nestle, Marg., 41, follows the same line and would read 

here "'1? or ^^^''^. & has ••aocD 1J3 'in my bed,' prob. finding nj.i in 
the second term and interpreting from f<''JiJ 'bed.'— 16. ^'^"^i'^] The usual 
Kr. N-'Dip is omitted by M. — '^"^'^I] See at 2*\ — '''^.?'?] Impf. of purpose; 
s. on irnSfj"' v.'''. — •'jj>-nn> n^Sd tj'di >h idn] VLeng. has rightly seen 
that the impf. is one of purpose, and represents the idiom in German 
by 'er sagte es mir zu und so wollte er mir kund thun.' Cf. i Ki. i" 
^h i-^M . . . n: 1-ins, 'bid [Solomon] that he give me.' The idiom ap- 
pears exactly in Arabic. I note in 'Usama ibn Munkid (ed. Deren- 
bourg), p. ID, 1. 19, kultii lahti fa-ta'dina It 'an 'udaiwana, 'I said to 
him that (and) he should permit me,' etc.; somewhat similar cases in 
Wright, Gram., 2, pp. 31/. The usual tr. 'told' for 1-n makes the vb. 
entirely parallel to ''jj;rnini, is superfluous then, while idn in that 
sense should have the obj. expressed, e.g., 4^. felt the awkwardness 
and rendered elicev t'Jjv dcxp^^stav = &, and H in paraphrase, and so 

17. 18. The interpreter gives a summary explanation of the 
vision. 17. These great beasts, which [to he explicit] are four [in 
number]: four kings shall arise from the earth. The Grr. tr. 
'kingdoms' by way of interpretation; but the individual king 
can stand for his empire, cf. 8^° and Neb. as the head of gold in 
c.^ The nuance 'from the earth' harks back to 'from the sea,' 
v.^ Both d and © introduce at the end of the v. a statement of 
the destruction of these kingdoms; but that is implied dramati- 
cally in the continuation, 18. And the Saints of the Most High 
shall take over [cf. 6^ (5")] the sovereignty and shall possess it for- 
ever. The word 'saint,' Aram, tyi'lp, Heb. l^^^p, used of members 

of the Church of Israel, is found only in this chap., 8^^, Ps. 16^, 
34'°; for the thought cf. Ex. 196, 'Ye shall be to me a kingdom 
of priests, a whole nation' (cf. inf. 12^). Its equivalent ajio'i 
became the standing name for members of the Christian Church. 
(See Dr. on the other far more frequent word hastd, also trans- 
lated 'saint' in the EVV.) The word translated 'Most High' 
occurs only in this combination, also w.^^- 2^- 27, it is a unique, 
Hebraizing word (pJl'^^y) corresponding to the Aram. S""-?!?, e.g., 

V.24 ('against the Most High'), and s. Comm. at 32". The term 
was probably a current one among the Chasidim. It is cited in 
Schechter's Zad. Fr., 20, 1. 8. As argued in Note at end of the 
chap., the saints of the Most High are the group typified by 
the Human, v.^^ 


17. NPaiai] <S B Q 26 132 149 h-"' om., al. to: [x.sf&Xa, Lucif. magna. 
— I'^^] So edd., exc. Bar, Kt. jun, Kr. pjs; the only instance of this 
form; it is used as copula. pj« n = to: [Tsau.]; <S elai and om. y^ns. 
Jahn, Cha. indorse (S, but the argument is weakened by observing 
that 05 syntactically rearranges the broken construction of the Aram., 
'these beasts . . . four kings shall rise' {cf. vP). — p^Sc] (g potat- 
Xetat = 1]h.^, so Ken. 253 = H regna ; (5 accepted by Knab., Jahn, 
Cha., but with Bert., Kamp. the change is needless; cf. 'king' for 
'kingdom,' 8^°. In c. 11 the text authorities vary much as between 
the two nouns. — n;?ix p Ji^ip"'] ^ by pregnant construction of j::, 
dfxoXoOvTat ixb i%q yf^i;, which has induced the plus in texts at 
if6T)aovTa[, which fails, however, in Lucif. Jahn, Cha. prefer (8 vs. 
1^; Ehr. supposes a lacuna. — For H cod. Am. gives correct construction 
of v. vs. text. rec. — 18. rJ''\V.] P]. of the abstract ('majesty'); s. on 
ITiSht 2" and Comm. on 4^^. The similar pi. D'K'^ii? Hos. 12', etc., 
protects this understanding, against Hitz., Bev., Behr., Mar., who 
argue for the phenomenon of pluraHzation of both nouns where the 
first is the proper pi., exx. in GK §124, q. The case of a^'^x ija Ps. 29') 
etc., is no proof, for QiSx = ain^rx. It is remarkable that the Aram, 
word ^tr''^. otherwise used in the book also occurs v.-^, alongside of 
pjvSy. But in this prob. current term of the day the Saints preferred 
the Hebraic to the Aram. word. Or the Heb. word may have slipped 
in from the Heb. orig. of the chap. The word belonged to the common 
Heb. stock, e.g., Phoen. 'EXtouv; but nouns in -on occur in Aram., s. 
Kau., §61, 3, Powell, Siipp. Heb. §§44. 45. — pjon^] Also v.-f = 'take 
in fief-possession,' s. on njdh 2". — N^nSj? d'^j? nj;i uzhy n;] (& om. the 
first member (supplied in Q V Lu.), and prob. with right Mar., Lohr 
(but against Kamp.'s judgment) om. it on the ground that the parallel- 
ism is improved. A similar plus appears in the Song in c. 3, v. <"". The 
combination H'^thy dS;? is unique; it possesses superlative significance, 
s. on jtiSn nSx 2". 

19-22. The seer desires more particular information about 
the fourth beast. 19. Then I desired to ascertain about the fourth 
beast, which was diverse from them all, exceeding terrible, its 
teeth of iron atid its claws of brass, devouring, crushing, and stamp- 
ing the residue with its feet ; 20. and about the ten horns which 
were on its head, and another which came up, and there fell before 
it three, and that horn, it had eyes and a mouth speaking big things, 
and its appearance was greater [i.e., it looked bigger] than its fel- 
lows. 21. / was beholding, and that horn was making war with 
the Saints and prevailed over them, 22 . until that the A ncient came, 

f'-'' 309 

and the decision was given for the Saints of the Most High, and 
the time arrived that the Saints possessed the sovereignty. 

The passage follows the description in w.''- *, with some addi- 
tional features, which have led many critics to desire to incor- 
porate them in the first instance. On the other hand, Sellin and 
Holscher would treat these expansions as secondary; s. Int., §21, 
c. 19. 20 constitute a long period composed of relative clauses 
(cf. 2"- ^^). The syntax of v.^° is improved by following a sug- 
gestion by Torrey (s. Note) so as to read: 'before which three 
horns fell, which had eyes.' 19. The feature of the 'nails of 
bronze' is new; the monster is like the Bab. sirussii beast. 21 
introduces the fresh item that ' that horn ' ' made war with the 
saints and prevailed over them' {of. Rev. 11^, 13^). Some critics 
have desired to postulate a lacuna between w.^ and ^ once con- 
taining this element, but then the mystery of the vision would 
have been revealed too early and undramatically. On the other 
hand, the seer himself is here anticipating the interpretation, 
and it is probable that this passage is a later addition; s. further 
Comm. on v.^^. The seer's contemporary interest is revealed by 
his inquisitiveness concerning the last beast and the judgment, 
which hitherto have been hid in figures. 22. Read with most 
comm., RVmg JV 'judgment was given for the saints,' i.e., 
decision was rendered for them; s. Note. The sentence 'judg- 
ment was given,' ^rT* Kl"''!, many critics (Ew., Bev., Mar., 
Kamp., Dr. (?), Lohr, Cha.) desire to amend: 'the court sat 
(:nri'' «:n = v.^o) and power was given' (^H'' S^t^^tyi), the 
present lacuna having been caused by haplography. But the 
text of ?j| is adequate. 

19. ^'T^] Kau., p. 79, eft. ^'.Il; 4I, and finds here 'Abschwa- 
chung des e zu I'; but Nold. in his review, p. 1019, explains the vowel 
from the internal i of the root. — *"'??-] So the edd. = Pael inf.; but 
vulgar texts and mss ^'^'-^^V., which is preferred by vLeng., Hitz., 
Mein., who eft. v.^*. There is no reason to tamper with the good idiom 
here = 'make sure, ascertain,' or with Behr. to suppose implicit change 
of subject for the inf., cfl. 2'\ Ex. 32^9.— ^;V^] So edd., exc. Bar '^)W; 
the former is act. ppl., and so ?'^T v.^, V.V^ 5'; the other pass, ppl., or 
adjectival, and following the Targumic pointing. The latter is more 
appropriate here and v.^ while T^F 5^ is properly verbal. — 20. nnx] (5 
a doublet toO hhc, Toij d'XXou as at v.^.— i't??'' ^V^l^] rd. as ppls., 
dva^ivToc; v.aX Exrivdl^ovTo?, i.e., as '^P? (s. at v.') and ^'^^j i.e.. 


the 5r. rdg., a sure proof that hSdj was in his text; s. on ipflj 5'. — 
H'-mp jd] partitively xwvTtpwTwv, c/. v.^^ — pn] Also v.", 2" = ij^wtf. — 
pT Njipi nVn] = (S; om., Or^c Lu. suppl.; but Q xpfa (c/. 230 
Tpfa xlparot) = Lucif., and this may have been in orig. 0. 'That [horn] ' 
would still remain outside of 0's witness, which corroborates Torrey's 
suggestion, I, 282, that we read p:-\p for pT Njnpi, which came in 
from v.". — 21. pirnp] Anarthrous as at 8^*, Ps. 16'. — pS nSj^] Sji 
with S of the obj., so also in Heb.— 22. ^^\ ^^'^] <& xV xpt'atv (xb 
%pi[L(z) eSwxe = & B, i.e., ^^]; cf. variants at v.'^ Two interpretations 
have been given, both of which were advanced by the early Prot. 
comm.: (i) 'decision was rendered for,' which has the vote of the ma- 
jority and of all recent comm., and so the view of AEz., 'he gave them 
revenge'; cf. Heb. pi || iddc'd nr;-, Dt. lo^', Ps. 140". (2) 'The (power 
of) judgment was given to,' properly denied on the ground that God 
is the judge in this chap. Of this interpretation there is reminiscence 
of the passage in Wis. 3', the righteous 'will judge nations and rule 
peoples,' and in Mt. 19^', 'when the Son of Man sits on the throne of 
his glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes 
of Israel,' and i Cor. 6^, ' Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the 
world?', and in a combination of v.' and this v. in Rev. 20*, xptVa eSoGtj 
oeuToi?. It is this 'analogy of Scripture' which has induced some comm. 
to take the second interpretation. — x:2i] = 'term,' s. at 2^^ and inf. 
v.*". The following phrase is one of result; cf. 2"- ", and s. Mar., Gr. 
§130. — ''^''nv] For expected ''^'^r'^, which Mar. demands, and Kamp. 
finds unnecessary, cf. ''''''^i? 5-°, 7'^ 

23-27. The interpretation of the fourth beast. 

23. Thus he said : The fourth beast — 

A fourth kingdom shall be upon earth : 

which shall be different from all the kingdoms, 

And it shall devour all the earth : 
and shall trample it and crush it. 

24. And the ten horns — 

Out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise : 

and another shall arise after them, 
And he shall be different from the first ones : 

and three kings shall he lay low. 

25. And he shall speak words over against the Highest : 

and shall wear out the Saints of the Most High ; 
And he shall think to change seasons and law : 
And they (the saints) shall be given into his hand : 
For a time and times atid half a time. 

y23-27 211 

26. But the court shall sit : 

and his dominion shall he taken away : 
for utter destruction and annihilation. 

27. And the sovereignty and the dominion and the greatness of 

the kingdoms under the whole heaven : 
shall be given to the people of the Saints of the Most High ; 
Their sovereignty an everlasting sovereignty : 
with all dominions serving and obeying them. 

The angel speaks in a poetical rhapsody, with free use of 
metrical forms; cf. Mar., Cha. 

23. 'AU the earth': as was said of the Pers. empire, 2^*. The 
three vbs. of the beast's activity are picture words: 'devour' 
(lit. 'eat') = 'destroy,' as Is. 9", Jer. 10"; 'trample,' of the 
treading of oxen, and so figuratively as here, Is. 41 ^^ Mi. 4^^; cf. 
the accumulation of similar terms in 2*°. 25. 'Speak words 
(over) against the Highest ' : cf. English ' speak against ' ; speak- 
ing words had in itself an evil connotation, cf. Hos. lo^ 'Wear 
out': another picture word, that had come to be equivalent with 
^to humble,' i Ch. 17^. 'The Highest' and 'the Most High' 
represent two different words in the original, s. Comm. at v.^^^ 
'Think' is a good idiomatic tr. of an Aram, word {cf. the Pesh.) 
with connotation of 'expect.' 'Seasons and law': the 'seasons' 
(JV; 'times' AV RW) are the calendar feasts of the Church; 
the word j^JDT = Heb. cn^ltt, Gen. i", Lev. 232- ^, etc. It was 
blasphemy against Deity to attempt to change these everlasting 
ordinances; the book of Jubilees is a commentary on this article 
of faith. Morgenstern, 'The Three Calendars of Ancient Israel,' 
Hebrew Union College Annual, 1924, p. 75, suggests that the 
passage refers to an attempt by Antiochus at revision of the 
calendar. The word 'law' has occurred above in its primary, 
governmental sense, e.g., 2^^, 6^; then of religious law, 'the law 
of his God,' 6^ and so here practically = 'religion.' In Ezr. j^"^, 
etc., it denotes the Thorah. The historical interpretation of this 
indictment is found in i Mac. i*^^-: 'The king [Ant. Epiph.] 
wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people and 
that each should forsake his own laws. And all the nations 
agreed according to the word of the king; and many of Israel 
consented to his worship, and sacrificed to the idols, and pro- 
faned the sabbath. And the king sent letters by the hand of 
messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, that they 


should follow laws strange to the land, and should forbid whole 
burnt offerings and sacrifice and drink offerings in the sanctuary, 
and should profane the sabbaths and feasts . . . that they 
might forget the Law and change all the ordinances.' There 
follows the history of the execution of this Nihilistic edict. 
With the interpretation of the figure here as the type of Anti- 
christ (e.g., in Rev.), this historical ref. came to be entirely 
ignored, exc. by a few, Aph. Syr., ApoUinaris, Polych., and 
'times and law' were interpreted of the world's institutes, the 
two terms referring to divine and human statutes (e.g., Calv., 
Hav., Keil). Grot, restored the historical interpretation by ref. 
to Mac. Among curiosities of interpretation may be noted 
Jeph.'s suggestion of Mohammed's change of the Kiblah, and 
Geier's of his change of the calendar. 

This rather abstract ref. to the terms of Ant.'s persecution 
raises the question whether the passage in v.^^, ' and the same 
horn made war with the saints and prevailed over them' is 
original. It is remarkable that this extreme statement should 
not be repeated in the interpretation, and equally difficult to 
see how the seer himself could see the thing figured. Either the 
writer has forgotten himself, or the passage is a later intrusion. 
Of the comm. Ehr. alone has recognized the inconcinnity of the 
passage. The omission of the passage would give an earlier date 
for the composition of the passage than that of the war with 
the Maccabees. 

25 (cont.). Tor a time and times and half a time' pp IJ? 
py ib2^ i'':ij;i = Heb. at 12^ 'for a time, times and a half.' 
These are 'the times of the Gentiles,' Lu. 212*. The word for 
'time' is another than that for seasons just above (but AV RW 
* times ' in both places). The extent of time is expressed, in apoc- 
alyptic fashion, indefinitely, and the problem is whether a defi- 
nite term is meant or an indefinite era is symbolically expressed. 
Essaying an exact interpretation, 'time' may be interpreted as 
'year' after the usual interpretation at 4" (q.v.). The traditional 
and by far the most common understanding of 'times' is as of 
a dual; the word is pointed as a pL, but the Aram, later having 
lost the dual, the tendency of M is to ignore it in BAram. (s. 
Note on 'eyes,' v.^). Accordingly 1 -\- 2 -\- }4 = 3/^ years. 
This term is identical with the half-year week of 9" — 3>^ 
years, and is roughly approximated by the 2,300 evenings and 

f'-'' 313 

mornings of 8^^ = 1,150, although this figure falls considerably 
short of the required number of days, since 3^^ solar years = 
1,278 days, and 3>^ years at 360 days = 1,260. (The 1,290 and 
1,335 days at 12"- 1- are later additions.) On these data s. ad 
locc. and Int., §21, d. This interpretation of our passage was 
fixed in the ist cent, a.d., for in connection with the citation of 
it in Rev. 12^^ the apocalyptist interprets it as meaning 42 
months, 11^, 13^, and 1,260 days, ii^ So also the contemporary 
Josephus with his period of 3^^ years for the devastation of the 
temple by Antiochus in B.J. pref. 7; i, i, 7, which term is a 
reminiscence of Dan., for in ^/ xii, 7, 5, he follows i Mac. in 
making the term exactly three years {v. inf.). The Christian 
comm. naturally follow suit, e.g., Hipp., Theodt., and Jer. with 
his grammatical comment, doubtless gained from his Jewish 
teachers: '^iempora, iuxta hebraici sermonis proprietatem, qui et 
ipsi dualem numerum habent, duos annos praefigurant." Sa. 
also has the dual (so noted by Ra. here, and AEz. at 12^). The 
Fathers, following the Biblical interpretation, refer the era to 
the dominion of Antichrist, with a few notable exceptions. Aph, 
Syr., Polych., Apollinaris see in it the time of the devastation 
of the temple. This historical interpretation was taken up again 
by Grot., Junius, Polanus, and is followed, of later scholars, by 
Bert., Rosen., vLeng., Maurer, Hitz., Stu., dEnv. (with typo- 
logical reference to Antichrist), Bev., Pr., Dr., Mar., Cha., Cur- 
tis (in DB), Kamp. (in EB), Kon., Mess. Weiss., 310, et al. ■ 

The most natural terminus ad quern is Judas' rededication of 
the temple in the month Chislev Era Sel. 148 = December 165 
B.C., I Mac. 4^2 ff.^ The initial attack of Ant. upon Jerusalem 
was in Era Sel. 143 =170 B.C., but the prohibition of the cult 
and devastation of the temple did not begin until 'full two 
years' later, i.e.. Era Sel. 145 = 168 B.C., s. i Mac. i^"- ^^ Ace. 
to 4^ the rededication occurred on the anniversary of the prof- 
anation of the temple, so the term of the devastation for i Mac. 
is three exact years. For the dates s. Schiirer, GJV 1, 200, n. 
39; 208, n. 7. (But ace. to 2 Mac. 10^ the devastation lasted 
but two years; this is an item in the disputed question as to the 
relative value of i and 2 Mac.) With Bert., al., the extra ^ 
year may include the months preceding the actual profanation 
of the temple. If the datum is post eventum, there is no reason 
to dispute what was in the writer's mind as to the facts. But 


if it is prophetic, the question arises why the scrupulous 'half 
a time/ why not two or three years, or the like? This is a prime 
argument of those who oppose the historical interpretation. It 
may however be suggested that 3^ years is a current phrase 
for half a sabbatic lustrum, as we might say 'half a decade,' 
'half a century,' etc. The sabbatic years were rigorously ob- 
served in agriculture by the Chasids, as we know from i Mac, 
while the term of seven years was current in law, e.g., Ex. 21^. 
With this solution we find the writer using a cryptically ex- 
pressed but fairly exact definition of time. If the passage is pro- 
phetic of the termination of the Antiochian persecution, we must 
admit it to be a remarkably approximate prediction of a future 
event. A similar instance of such a short-term prediction, which 
history shows was fulfilled, is that by Isaiah, Is. 8^, who prophe- 
sied that while his as yet unborn child was still an infant, i.e., 
within two or three years, Damascus would be vanquished, a 
prediction that came about within three years, 735-732. For 
similar exact prophecies of the same prophet cf. 16'^, 21^^, 291^-; 
in the case of Jeremiah, the fate of the prophet Hananiah, c. 
28. Particularly Dr., pp. Ixv seq., and Cha. stress this predic- 
tive element. 

But the contrary opinion insists that ' time and times and half 
a time' is indefinite or symbolic. And so some exegetes who 
would hold to a contemporary, not distant application, but re- 
gard the term as altogether vague. For criticism of the 'his- 
torical' interpretation, s. esp. Keil, Zock., Mein., and Behr., 
denying the definiteness of the 7,^2 years. The actual pi. and the 
indefinite i^£ understood as ' portion ' (although in the papp. 'S 
means constantly 'half') are insisted upon. So Jeph. in as 
many words; Tirinus paraphrases: "seu longo, seu breui, tem- 
pore"; and Behr.: "das gewohnliche Zeitmaass (ein Jahr), dazu 
dasselbe mehrfach genommen, dazu dasselbe theilweise genom- 
men." However, the 'half still militates against the theory of 
a round number. The early Jewish and general Patristic in- 
terpretation was followed by the early Prot. comm. (with a 
few exceptions noted above), referring the period to the reign 
of the Antichrist. The most popular interpretation is that 
which is thus presented by Calv. : ^^tempiis: pro tempore aliquo, 
cuius finis est in consilio Dei; in tempora: in prorogationem. 
temporum; usque ad sedionem, uel diuisionem; ut significet ali- 

^23-27 ^j^ 

quern modum fore et finem his malis, adeoque priorem tristitiam 
mitiget." The latter point is illustrated from the shortening of 
those days for the sake of the elect in Mt. 24^2. Vatablus holds 
that 7 is the perfect number, the halving of it gives the inferior 
number of Antichrist. Similarly Kran., Klief., Keil, who adduce 
the 3>2 years of the famine in Elijah's day, ace. to Lu. 4^^ Ja. 
5^^ (But this Judaistic notion of the time, not in the Elijah 
story, where only the third-year famine is noted, is perhaps set 
by our passage; s. the N.T. comm.) This figure is eagerly taken 
up by the maintainers of the mythological interpretation of the 
chap. (v. sup. on w." ^ ■) ; 3>^ is regarded as an apocalyptic sym- 
bol like other multiples of 7, e.g., Bousset, Rel. d. Jud., 284, and 
his comm. on Rev. 13 ^ 

26. 27 repeat variantly w."- ^*. The word 'kingdoms [under 
the whole heaven] ' appears in AV as 'kingdom,' whether through 
ignoring of the peculiar construct idiom here, or through insist- 
ence on the kingdom of Christ; GV abbreviates, prob. for the 
same reason: 'das Reich, Gewalt und Macht unter dem Him- 
mel.' For 'under the whole heaven' cf. g^^ and Note there. In 
2^b the pronouns of the Aram, in the phrases translated above 
'their kingdom' and 'obeying them' (with JV) are sing., 'its,' 
'it,' doubtless referring to 'the people,' to whom in v.'' 'the 
sovereignty' is given. From the context the ref. to 'the Most 
High ' as the nearest antecedent is fallacious ; but it is accepted 
by and AV RW ('whose' with B or 'and his,' 'him') and by 
a few comm., e.g., Keil. Calv. sees in it the submission to the 
Christian Church. The Biblical interpretation is of the reign of 
the Saints, s. Note. 

23. Njirn] (S correctly Siofoet, and so at vv.'- ''; but here exe- 
getically uxepe^st = irTin = "B mains erit ; similarly S* II v.^*. — 
njpini nj-^nn] Cf. 2*°. (S here is in contracted or corrupt form, and 
was pieced out from in Hex. For (8> dvaffTaxwaet, cf. Note at end of 
2". — 24. linN] B om. exepo? by haplog. of xo£TaaTT)a|sTateT£|po<;|o?. 
— nyt'-'] (5 an exegetical plus, [Stotast] xa/.o;c;, carried over into texts 
(exc. 230) = Iren., Lucif. malis. — s'^mp p] xavxa; xoii? s'tixpoaOsv, 
230 plus aJTou (i.e., as in v.=°), indicating a var. tr. = Iren., Lucif., Aug. 
—25. 1?'?] Cf. "'?'? 65; with this mng. cf. ^^t] 10", and Sy in the par- 
allel passage 11'^; i.e., uersus > aduersus (vLeng.); or more exactly 
with Behr., 'gegeniiber'; with Calv., "sedebit quasi ad latus Dei, hoc 
est, ex opposito: manifestus hostis erit"; and so Hav., "in dem Aus- 
drucke liegt . . . das sich Gott gleich stellen"; c/. Keil. This is Sym.'s 


interpretation (in Jer.), sermones quasi Dens loquetur (corr. loquitur), 
cf. 2 Thes. 2*. Tirinus, Kon., Ewh., recognizing a difficulty, tr. 'con- 
cerning.' May the word be identified with Arab, dadd, bidaddi, 'against,' 
which would have coalesced in Aram, with sadd? — ^2V,] For origin of 
the rt. s. Haupt, AJSL 22, 259. Heb. nS^ = 'be worn out,' of clothes, 
then ' perish ' ; the Piel used actively ' use up ' ; for the mng. here cf. i Ch. 
17' inSaS II imj>'S 2 Sa. 7"; for the former vb. Curtis suggests that it 
was supplanting the older nj;j. In Targ. Is. 3^^ xSa = Heb. jno. Both 
(S xaTaTpt'i];£i = II and xaXatwaEt = 21 (Lucif.) inueterabit, give lit- 
eral renderings; Lu. Taxetvwffst. Several mss (33 36 87 89 90 91 228 h--" 
= A) xXavTiaet evidently error (preferred by Bert.) for xaXatwaet, cf. 
II-'. # followed this early error with nSsj 'deceit,' i.e., nS3> rd. as 
n'^3"', becoming the Syr. verbal form nSsj, which was then understood 
as a noun. But Aph. Syr. understands n'^dj as a vb., 'will restrain.' 
For Perles' suggestion of nSdi s. at 3-'. — i^D'] For the disputed rt. s. 
Lexx. Cowley reads the vb. moD 'I thought,' in APO pap. 10, 1. 7 = 
AP, no. 37. — m] For the anarthrous noun cf. N.T. yb[xoq. — jnnini] 
'The saints' are the subject, not 'the times,' with some early Prot. 
comm., and so evidently (5 0, which tr. with a sing. vb. — py ly 
py jSiji pjiyi] For j-iy s. at 4"; the Heb. tr. 12' uses li'is. The 
phrase is cited Rev. 12^*. If a dual was intended originally, it was 
ignored by M, s. on ]-<i^'; v.'. — jSd] = 'half,' as in the papp., e.g., 
APA pap. C, 1. II. For the conj. with jSa B 22 89 130 132 149 have 
xa£ ye; elsewhere ye = ^n; here it appears to represent a glossated 
numeral, poss. y = 3, e = ett) (or a symbol for 5^?). — 26. ^0'.] The 
same form in J Aram., Syr.; Bar's suggestion, accepted by Behr., that 
it is an abbreviated Ithpeel is absurd. read it as perf. = v.'". — 
njtaW] C5 ir ignore pron. suff. (0 Lu. hab.), cf. Ken. 153 Njta'^::'.— 
nnain^ nnntrnS] Active with pass, implication; cf. npsjn^ (r^, inii 
•With iv^n Jos. 2', etc., and cases in Syr. cited by Duval, GS §332, b. 
— NDiD n;?] = 6"', but with opposite implication = 'utterly' = Heb. 
on n;?. — 27. ^'^''^"1] See at 4", here = 'greatness,' as in Targ. — noSn 
ninn] Unique case of const, before prep, phrase, a usage common in 
Syr., s. Nold., SG §206.— r-Ji''"';' '^''^? d>I] = ^1p d? 12'. It is unnec- 
essary to analyze with Mar., Gr. §118, into 'ein Volk, das aus Heiligen 
des Hochsten besteht.' — '^0''^:?] The antecedent must be ^'i, cf. v.^. 
(& stresses this dominion of the saints; and so Wis. 3^ (cited in Note, 
v."). Rev. S'" paatXsuouaiv i%\ tt^s y^q, 22* PocatXeuaouatv sic, t. atvwva^ 
T. aiwvwv, cf. 20*. strangely ignores, or avoids this attribution, assign- 
ing the dominion to the Highest. 

28. At this point the end of the word : so the literal tr. Cf. Jer. 
Si'\ 'So far the words of Jeremiah,' In^Dn^ ^21 -Jn Ty, 


and Ecc. 121^, 'The end of the word,' '^21 CjlD, a technical 
term mng. ' book's end ' (s. Barton ad loc.) The usual tr. ' mat- 
ter' for Xn^D is too indefinite here, although proper just below. 
It includes the subject-matter of the vision, which however is 
essentially a 'word' of God, cf. lo^, 'a word was revealed unto 
Dan.' For the corresponding phrase at the opening of the story, 
'beginning of words,' s. at v.^. / Daniel — much were my thoughts 
troubling me: The seer is recalled to himself, as in v.^^; the 
phrase, describing his affection of mind, appears above 5®- ^°. 
And my color changed [for the phrase s. at 5®- ^- ^°], and the mat- 
ter [a potential word] I kept in my heart. The literary composi- 
tion of the vision was later, as indeed was the case with the 
oracles of the great Prophets; a book was finally compiled and 
concluded, 12'*. The phrase is cited again in Apocrypha and 
N.T. after similar visions, s. Note. 

28. "? '^^ = Heb. ni) ny, e.g., Ex. f^. (g tr. the phrase, ew? xaxa- 
aTO(pf)s ToO Xoyou, attached to v.^^, i.e., 'up to the denouement (a dramatic 
term) of the matter.'— iijna'> Mn] = 5", and cf. 5^- ^— nntsj •'^Sa nd'-d] 
CJ. Gen. 37". xb gfi\i.(x sv Tfj xapSi'qt [xou SieTT)pT]aa (O saxTjpi^a), cf. 
Lu. 2^1, with Stex^psc (also cf. v."); also (g 4=^ Test. Levi 6^, S^', 
2 Esd. 14". 


The term translated above 'like a man' or a 'humanlike one' (v."), gen- 
erally rendered verbatim 'one like unto a son of man,' is the most notable 
crux in this book, the more crucial because with it is involved the Christol- 
ogy of the N.T. However, it is fortunate that the comm. at the present 
passage have been noticeably free from theological bias, the Messianic and 
non-Messianic interpretations being found almost indifferently with con- 
servatives and radicals. The present writer will confine himself to the 
briefest possible discussion of the term in its context. 

In the first place, the philology of the term is a matter of dispute. Was 
it current and commonplace, or is it cryptic, involving a mystery? The 
many theories fall, on the whole, into three classes, although withal they 
develop their special miances. The three classes are as follows: (i) The 
personal, Messianic interpretation, the eldest and, in past Jewish and Chris- 
tian exegesis, the prevailing opinion; (2) the symbolical interpretation, the 
'son of man' being type of the people of the saints, itself an ancient view; 
(3) the mythological theory, of recent origin, which finds in the 'Son of Man' 
a mythical and traditional figure of hoar antiquity — so joining hands in part 
with the Messianic interpretation. 


To begin with, the prep. ' like ' belongs to the agenda of the controversy. 
Does the prep, indicate essence, identity (d verilatis), or similarity? A vague 
pursuit of the prep, through the language brings us nowhere. But in this 
chap, the same prep, is used in exactly parallel circumstances, 'like a lion,' 
'like a leopard,' vv.*- ^, while the same notion is expressed in v.* by a ppl. 
'h n^m 'resembling,' with no difference in mng. but for the sake of stylistic 
alternation. 1 Analogy requires that the prep, here is equally symbolic; it is 
exactly identical with 'like the appearance of a man,' 8^^ = lo'^ (with dif- 
ferent words for 'man,' nir and homo), 'one like the likeness of sons of men,' 
lo^^. It is not correct to speak of the prep, as affecting a mystery; it belongs 
to the expression of visionary phenomena, in which the seer, whether spon- 
taneously or through the use of conventional language, knows that he is 
seeing only 'the like of something (so the Sem. use of the prep., s. Note); 
similarly Volz, Jiid. Esch., ii: "der kbar 'enasch ist ein visionaler Mensch, 
kein Mensch, wie ihn das gewohnliche Auge sieht, darum 3, aber es ist doch 
gerade ein Mensch, wie das Wasser, der Lowe doch Wasser und Lowe sind." 
There is a subtle distinction in v.^, where 'the like of an ancient is not said 
(demanded by Cha.) ; the reason is that Deity is a person, whereas the beasts 
and presumably the man are not real living entities but types. 

As for the term 'son of man,' ^'^?*: "*?, in Syr. this, often in shortened form 
barnd's, is the current word for a human being {homo). But Dalman- argues 
that the term is not found in the PalAram. of early date; the pi. ntjn >j3 
appears as a transliteration of the Heb. Divsn ij3 'sons of man'; in the later 
Targums the pi. is more frequently found, also occasionally the sing. Fiebig 
adds a case in a Rabb. tradition of the 2d cent, a.d., s. Schmidt, col. 4708. 
Dalman holds that the later usage is due to the influence of the Oriental 
dialect. He accounts for the term here on his theory of a Heb. original of 
the chap., the background then being the common Heb. onx p. Dalman's 
contention is borne out by the subsequently discovered Elephantine papyri, 
where s'JX "i3, with also its pi., never appears. There the word 12J uir pre- 
dominates by far (some 40 cases vs. NsrjN 8 times, the latter only in the 
Ahikar papp.); it is used of the male, as inclusive of the woman (in legal 
language), or in the distributive sense— in a word exactly like the Heb. U'^n 
(which word itself also occurs twice). In Dan. the proportion is reversed, 
B'JN occurs twice as many times as "laj. But this is due to the different sub- 
ject-matter of the two lots of literature. It may be noted that "i3J and it-jn 
are used in the Ahikar papp. somewhat synonymously — either may be used 
in an axiom; but if the word is given an attributive adj., then ijj, not z':n, 
is used. That is, 13J meant the individual, ii'JN the species. Still, it may 

' Konig, Die messianischen Weissagungen, 28Q, insists on the distinction: the mon- 
sters were only like certain beasts, but the figure here is 'menschenartig.' 

' Worte Jesu, §ix, i, p. 191; his discussion is elaborated and amended by Fiebig, 
Der Menschensohn, 1901, Schmidt, 'Son of Man,' EB coll. 4705-4740, introd. §_§, 
Dr., p. 103, and his article 'Son of Man,' DB. 


be asked, with Schmidt, whether the argument ex silentio is to be too much 
depended upon. The term i3J meant primarily a male and was not always 
suitable. The abstract Nr:N predominates in Dan., but its occurrence in 4- 
is repeated in s-^ by nii'jn ijn, the one other occurrence of the latter being 
in 2^*. The idiom of 'son of a species was common in Heb., and also in 
Akk. (s. Del., Hwb., p. 390), while we have at least one occurrence of it in 
the "equally unique term r^ha -\2 'a god's son,' 3". This case corroborates 
the idiom for early Aram. The writer might have used here 12J, cf. 8'^ of 
the angel; he might have used, Uke the papp., ^m; but the expression of 
both category and individual was best expressed by czk -13. It is not a 
beast, nor a divinity, 'a-son-of-God,' but a man who is raised to the empire 
of the world. Accordingly mystery is not to be discovered in the term; it is 
questionable whether Dr.'s suggestion that it is 'a choice semi-poetical ex- 
pression' is to be accepted. The writer may have had in mind Ps. 8^, 'What 
is man (i^un) that thou mindest him, or a son of man (dtn J^) that thou 
reckonest him?' Curtis, DB i, ss6a, aptly eft. Ps. 80, where 'man || son 
of man,' v.^* = Israel, is contrasted with the wild boar, v." = the heathen. 
Unfortunately English gives no satisfactory equivalent, such as German 
'Menschensohn.' Exactly, 'son of man' is 'a human.' 

However much a student, for one reason or another, may be inclined to 
find here a Messianic prophecy of a heaven-born Saviour coming to the 
rescue and rule of his people, nevertheless the strict exegesis of the chap, 
does not bear this out. The ' accurate ' interpretation given later on tells us 
in so many words what is symbolized by the vision. Ace. to v.'* it is 'the 
saints of the Most High' who 'shall receive the kingdom'; and in v." 'sov- 
ereignty and dominion . . . are given to the people of the saints of the 
Most High'; i.e., both statements are intentional replicas of v.". All comm. 
find the parallel in the Stone in which culminates the great historical drama 
of c. 2. Early Jewish and Christian exegesis which found in the Stone the 
Messiah was logical in interpreting c. 2 and c. 7 in parallelism; but it is 
illogical to understand the Stone of the Kingdom of God and the Son of 
Man here as the Messiah merely because a personal figure is used. 

The writer thus agrees with the majority of recent comm. on Dan., with 
Mein., Bev., Pr., Dr., Mar., Cha.' For the English reader reference may 
be made to Dr.'s admirable excursus, pp. 102-110, and to his article, 'Son 

'Of other scholars who take the same position may be noted: Schiirer, GJV 2, 
SQo: E. L. Curtis, 'Daniel,' DB (s. p. 556a); Hiihn, Die mess. Weissagungen, 1899, 
I, 78; E. A. Edghill, An Enquiry into the Evidential Value of Prophecy, 1906, p. 371; 
Lagrange, Le messianisme chez les Juifs, 1909, p. 66 (identifying the Man with the 
Mace, heroes); Konig, Die mess. Weissagungen, 286 /. For the scholarship of the 
18th and early 19th centuries s. vLeng., p. 335. For the 19th-century authorities 
arrayed for the symbolic and the Messianic interpretation, s. Dr., p. 108, and 
Schmidt, 'Son of Man,' EB coll. 4709, 4710, notes, and his extensive display of 
the authorities in his earlier article, 'The "Son of Man" in the Book of Daniel,' 
JBL 1900, pp. 22-28. , 


of Man,' DB. This view also possesses antiquity. Aphrem Synis notes that 
the immediate interpretation of the Son of Man is the Jews, as later he in- 
terprets the saints of the Most High, v.--, as the Maccabees; but even so, he 
adds, the fulfilment of the prophecy is found in our Lord. This exegesis ap- 
pears in the historical rubrics in this chap, in &. Also Theodt. observes that 
this was the opinion of certain orthodox scholars. So AEz., against the cur- 
rent Jewish Messianic interpretation, held that the Man represents Israel. 
The notion came up in the early Prot. scholarship, s. Calvin's protestations 
(in Pole), and Grot.'s notion is of interest, that 'the son of man,' = homo 
priuatiis, indicates the Roman empire (so also he interpreted the Stone in 
c. 2). Sa. translates, 'a youth,' 5a&Z). For other views s. Schmidt, col. 4715, 


It must be admitted that the earliest interpretation of 'the Son of Man' 
is Messianic. The term is frequent in the Parables of Enoch, En. 37-71, 
where it occurs 14 times.'' The dependence upon Dan. 7 is patent from the 
first reference, En. 46^ ^■■. 'And I saw One who had a head of days, and his 
head was white like wool, and with him was another being whose counte- 
nance had the appearance of a man, and his face was full of graciousness, 
hke one of the holy angels. And I asked the angel who went with me and 
showed me all the hidden things, concerning the Son of Man, who he was, 
and whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days. And he an- 
swered and said unto me. This is the Son of Man who hath righteousness,' 
etc. Without doubt this was the primitive Judaistic understanding of the 
statement of the Lord at his trial, Mk. 14^=: 'I am [the Son of the Blessed]; 
and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and com- 
ing with the clouds of heaven.' The Son-of-Man theme also appears in a 
vision in 2 Esd., c. 13; the main body of the book belongs to the end of the 
first cent, a.d., but c. 13 may be earlier than a.d. 70.^ In this vision elements 
of Dan. have been freely drawn upon to compose an original creation. Vv. 
^ "• read: 'I dreamed a dream by night, and I beheld, and lo ! there arose a 
violent wind from the sea, and stirred all its waves. And I beheld, and lo ! 
the wind caused to come up out of the heart of the seas as it were the form 
of a man. And I beheld, and lo ! this Man flew with the clouds of heaven. 
. . . After this I beheld, and lo ! there was gathered together from the four 
winds of heaven an innumerable multitude of men to make war against the 
Man that came up out of the sea. And I beheld, and lo ! he cut out for 
himself a great mountain, and flew upon it. But I sought to see the region 
or place from whence the mountain had been cut out, and I could not.' 
N.b. the combination with the Stone of c. 2. There follows the account of 

^ See Dr., p. 107, n. i. Dr. presents the more important passages at length, pp. 
106/. For criticism of some of the cases s. Schmidt, col. 471 1. The tr. below is 
from Charles. 

' S. Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse, introd. to the chap. Box's tr. is followed in the 


the assault upon the Man by the peoples and their destruction by the 
breath of his lips. Such a personification of the Son of Man into the Mes- 
siah even at an early date — the Parables of Enoch were written within a 
century after Dan.— is not at all surprising or improbable, as Bousset claims, 
Rel. d. Jiid., 305 /. As noted above, how natural it was for the Servant of 
Yhwh to be personified; cf. the naive inquiry of the eunuch. Acts 8^-"-. 
Similarly the abstract expression of the nci" 'the growth' (EVV 'branch') 
for the Davidic dynasty, Jer. ;^t,^^, was promptly Messianized, Jer. 23', Zech. 
3', 6'^, the latter prophet writing within the same century as Jer. 

The Messianic interpretation was apparently held by Akiba, first third 
of 2d cent., who held that the thrones of v.'" were appointed for God and 
David {Sank. 386, cited above ad loc). Joshua b. Levi, c. 250, taught that, 
if Israel deserved it, the Messiah would come with the clouds of heaven, 
after Dan. 7, or, if otherwise, riding upon an ass, after Zech. 9' (Sank. 98a). 
This interpretation was followed by all the Jewish comm., with the excep- 
tion of AEz., as noted above, including the Karaite Jepheth, e.g., Rashi, 
'This is King Messiah.' * Finally in the consideration of the Messianic in- 
terpretation may be noticed Porphyry's counter-notion that the Son of Man 
is Judas Maccabee, to whom Jer. triumphantly responds: "docere debet 
quomodo cum nubibus coeli ueniat," etc. 

Of the recent comm. dEnv., Knab., Behr. hold to the Messianic interpre- 
tation; so also Kamp., ' Daniel,' EB 1003, Volz, Jiid. Esch., 10 f. The strength 
of the Messianic interpretation arises from the striking impression of the 
figure of the Son of Man, but those who hold it must admit that that crown- 
ing figure disappears at once in its subsequent identification with the king- 
dom of the saints. 

The third class of interpretation, the mythological, is of very recent date. 
Its precursor is to be found in Schmidt's hypothesis that the Son of Man is 
the angel Michael; s. his article JBL 1900, pp. 22-28, and cf. EB 4711a. 
His basic argument is that in the subsequent chapters angels are described 
as 'like the appearance of a man'; he enters the field of Bab. mythology by 
taking Marduk as the prototype of Michael. See Volz, p. 10, for criticism 
of this view: Michael is a well-known figure, the Son of Man here a future, 
non-existent one. And if the beasts are not real, is it logical to demand 
reality in the Son of Man? Volter in ZTNW igo2, 173 jf., would identify 
the figure with a certain Amesha Spenta, a Persian genius incorporating the 
Kingdom of God — a view criticised by Schmidt, col. 4710. Bertholet, in 
Stade, Biblische Theologie, pp. 22 1_^., agrees with Schmidt's opinion, and 
would incorporate that of Volter: "die Umdeutung ware dann durch die 
Gestalt Michaels vermittelt." 

« For the Talmudic and Targumic citations s. Dalman, Work Jcsu, §xi, 2, p. 201; 
for the Jewish comm. Schottgen, Horae hebraicae, 2, 263; CBMich., ad loc; Kon., 
p. 299, n. i; and in general Dr., From v." was derived the Messianic name 
"W:. 'cloud-man.' 


But the most representative and wide-spread theory in this class is that 
which was propounded at length by Gunkel in 1895, followed notably by 
Zimmern, Bousset, Gressmann, A. Jeremias.' In his Schopfung und Chaos, 
323-335, Gunkel expounds at length the vision in Dan. 7 (c/. Porter's resume 
of the theory, DB 4, 261). He seductively adduces the primitive chaos myth 
with its winds and monsters, finds antique traits in the setting of the divine 
judgment, and assembles the numerous parallels from Bible and Apocrypha 
to prove that we have to deal with a common body of primitive mythology. 
With regard to the Son-of-Man theme he proceeds, p. 331, to the following 
induction: "Auch der im Zusammenhange des Dan. so rathselhafte Men- 
schensohn, der auf den Wolken des Himmels kommt, wird zur Tradition 
gehoren; denn es ist schwer zu sagen wie der Verfasser von sich aus auf dies 
Bild grade fur Israel hiitte verf alien konnen; zumal Israel ja in dem Gesichte 
schon unter dem Namen 'die Heiligen' erwahnt wir. Im Mythus wiirde 
'der Menschensohn' der Titel des Gottes-tJberwinders sein." For proofs of 
this position Gunkel refers to 'below,' apparently to pp. 367^., where he 
draws from the elaborations in Rev. and the Adam JK^admon specula- 

This theory was pursued by Zimmern far more exhaustively, as far as 
the Bab. sources were concerned, in his treatment of Marduk and the 
' Christological ' myths of that god, in KAT 370-396, esp. 391 f. From the 
identity of the four beasts with the four world-ages, Zimmern concludes: 
"So ist wahrscheinlich, dass . . . auch der '(himmUsche) Mensch' ur- 
spriinglich von einem bestimmten Sternbild am Himmel seinen Ausgang 
genommen hat. ' (Himmlischer) Mensch' wird also urspriinglich so viel 
bedeuten wie ein bestimmtes Sternbild, das einen Menschen, bezw. einen 
Gott in Menschengestalt darstellt, im Unterschiede von anderen Sternbil- 
dern, die tierische und sonstige Gestalten aufweisen." Farther on, he sug- 
gests identifying the Man with one of the constellations in the neighborhood 
of Marduk's Bull, possibly the Charioteer or Orion. These mythological 
possibilities, on the basis of later literature, are further pursued by Bousset, 
Rel. d. Jud., 29s, 301 f. After a criticism of the current symbolical interpre- 
tation and the concurrent argument that in Enoch the Son of Man was 
promptly elevated to Messianic status, he concludes, p. 307: "Somit drangt 
sich die Vermiitung auf, dass in der Gestalt des praexistenten Menschen- 
sohnes zwei Gestalten miteinander verschmolzen sind: der judische 'Messias' 
und eine praexistente himmlische Wesenheit, deren Ursprung und Herkunft 
noch dunkel ist. . . . Damit ist das Gebiet angesteckt, auf dem wir zu 
suchen haben." The same writer continues this theme, drawing especially 

' For a recent criticism of this theory s. Konig, pp. 295 /. 

' For criticism of Gunkel s. Giesebrecht's review in GGA 1895, 596^., and Well- 
hausen's critique in his Skizzen ti. Vorarbeiten, 6 (1899), 215-249. Gunkel responded 
to Wellhausen in ZWT 42 (1899), 581-611. 


from Gnostic sources, in his Hauptproblente der Gnosis, 1907, chap. 4, 'Der 
Urmensch,' noting the bearing upon Judaistic Uterature, pp. igt f. Gress- 
mann follows in the same tracks in his Ursprimg der judisch-israeUlischen 
Eschalologie, 1905, §33, 'Der "Mensch" im Daniel.' Gressmann does so 
much credit to the more commonplace interpretation as to admit that "die 
Originalitat des Arbeiters besteht allein darin, dass er den Menschen umge- 
deutet hat auf Israel." But after this aside he continues: "alles Ubrige ist, 
wie die Vision lehrt, zur Rekonstruktion des alten Mythus zu benutzen." 
Similarly A. Jeremias, in his Das AUe Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients 
(1906), has surrendered himself completely to the spell of Babylon; s. his 
Index s.v. 'Menschensohn,' and especially p. 595, note on Dan. 7. He holds, 
against Zimmern, that if an astral prototype is present, Nebo, not Marduk, 
is to be thought of. He identiiies the term 'son of man' with the epithet 
zir ameluti used of the mythological hero Adapa (= Adam) = Marduk, s. 
pp. 9, 82, 168. 

More space has been given to statement of this theory of interpretation 
because its development is subsequent to the comm. on Dan. The writer 
subscribes to the acute critique of the Pan-Babylonist school in Prof. Kem- 
per FuUerton's admirable Presidential Address, 'Viewpoints in the Discus- 
sion of Isaiah,' JBL 1922, pp. i-ioi, esp. pp. 71 ff. The fault he finds with 
that school's treatment of Isaiah is not relieved by any demonstrations it 
can give in the field of Dan., although here the Bab. influence might well be 
expected to be of far more patent and potent character. That Bab. mythol- 
ogy, current in letters, art and speech, should have influenced apocalyptic 
literature goes without saying. But it is not convincing to argue back from 
later Hterature like Rev., or even Enoch, to what must have been the mental 
background of Dan. The first principle of interpretation, unless the com- 
position is a crazy patchwork — and that may be said of some later apoca- 
lyptic productions, in contrast to the poetic simplicity of this chap. — is to 
allow the document to speak for itself as the product of the writer's mind, 
and to subordinate extraneous influences, unless they are required to make 
his thought intelligible. Not one of those ingenious scholars, working tire- 
lessly over the same field, for which Bab. hterature affords an enormous 
treasure, has been able to identify the Son-of-Man figure. 

If we admit that the term 'son of man' is not in itself mysterious, and if 
we avoid confounding it with the later interpretations, there is nothing 
strange in its use as the type of Israel. It belongs to the Semitic genius to 
personify the people, as in the ' I '-Psalms. The Servant of YiiWH is another 
instance, which easily became personalized and Messianized. (Gressmann 
is at least logical in insisting that the Servant of Yhwh is also a mythological 
motive, op. cit., §29.) The present writer submits that the symbolical inter- 
pretation of the Son of Man is wholly adequate to the chap. It is terse, but 
we have not to speculate on sous-entendus. We must allow it its own origi- 
nality and do justice to the simply but finely limned features of the drama 


without thinking that every detail is a painful borrowing on the part of a 
second-hand litterateur.^ 



1. 2. In the third year of Belshazzar Dan. finds himself in 
vision as at Susa in Elam by the Ulai. 3-14 . He beholds a two- 
horned ram butting toward three points of the compass; it is 
attacked and destroyed by a one-horned buck appearing from 
the west. In the place of its conspicuous horn arise four other 
horns, and out of these a little horn which exalts itself even 
against God, desecrates his sanctuary, and interrupts the daily 
double sacrifice for 2,300 due celebrations. 15-26. The angel 
Gabriel interprets the vision to the seer: the two-horned ram is 
the Medo-Persian empire; the buck is Greece, and its horn the 
first king, its four successors the four subsequent kingdoms, and 
the little horn a king who is particularly described in his char- 
acter and doings. 27. As aftermath of the vision the seer falls 
sick, but returns to the royal business, still without comprehen- 
sion of the vision. With this chap, the bk. reverts to Hebrew. 

With the explicit interpretation of the two beasts as denoting 
Medo-Persia and Greece (w.^°- ^i) and with the obvious allu- 
sion to Alexander, it would seem that there can be no question 
of the historical explanation of the vision. This interpretation 
is as old as the Jewish Alexander Saga, s. Jos., A J xi, 8. Com- 
mentators like Hippolytus and Jerome, who saw in the little 
horn of c. 7 the Antichrist, and who, like Jer., contradicted Por- 
phyry's identification of the little horn there with Antiochus, 
admit without question the identity of the little horn here with 
that tyrant. This chap, is patently a doublet of c. 7, and the 
latter more cryptic chap, must, most reasonably, be interpreted 
from c. 8. It seems like an amazing obstinacy of opinion when 
scholars like Hengstenberg, Pusey, Wright, Wilson, refuse to 
take Yawan-Greece in other than its historical sense and persist 
in making it include the Roman empire even to the end of the 

' The writer has avoided pursuing the theme in the NT field. The articles hy 
Dr. and Schmidt in DB and EB present the literature of the discussion; s. also a 
brief survey in Preuschen, Hwb. d. N.T., igio, col. 1106, and for a recent treatment 
of the problem in the N.T., Konig, pp. 300 /. 

81-2 325 

As a double to c. 7 this vision is notably weaker in poetic 
force than its predecessor. In c. 7 the cryptic character of Apoca- 
lyptic is well preserved; in this chap, the writer shows far more 
zeal for the concrete, as in vv.^"- ^\ where he abandons the proper 
elements of vision. If one may allow more than an artificial ori- 
gin for the scene of c. 7 and find in it the elements of a real 
psychological state, then this chap, explains itself as not a mere 
doublet but as a reasoned commentary upon the other; cf. Int., 
§22, ft. It may be noted that as in c. 7 ^ has the historic rubrics 
identifying the several symbols with the things signified, Darius, 
Alexander, his death, Antiochus. 

1. 2. Introduction to the vision. 1. In the third year of the 
reign of Belshazzar the king a vision appeared to me, me Daniel, 
after that which appeared to me at the first. 2. And I saw in the 
vision : — Now it was in my seeing that I was in the hurg Shiishan, 
which is in the province of Elam, [and I saw in the vision] and I 
was by the stream Ulai. 

The datum of 'the third year' of Belsh. appears to be gra- 
tuitous, unless there was a tradition of a three years' reign of 
that monarch; s. Int., §19,^. For defence of the dating s. Wright, 
Daniel, 126, Wilson, Studies, ii^ f. For the insistence on the 
seer's ego cf. 7^^- 2*. V.^ reads very repetitiously and without 
entire support from the Grr., while its interpretation has been 
embarrassed from antiquity by the problem whether Dan.'s 
presence in Elam was in cor pore or in spiritu. The eldest in- 
terpretation, that Dan. was actually in Elam, appears in J03., 
A J X, II, 7, who also records in the beginning of the chap, that 
Dan. built for himself a fine building at Ecbatana in Media, 
which was still surviving in perfect condition, that in it they 
were burying the kings of Media, Persia, and Parthia up to the 
present day, and that a Jewish priest was its custodian. This 
then would be the first definite instance in Judaism of the can- 
onization of a locality connected with one of the Biblical saints 
(a process of popular religion of extensive vogue, cf. Mt. 23^^). 
For the Tombs of Dan. s. further Int., §4, c. But that Dan. was 
in Elam only in uisione was early recognized, e.g., by ^, 'I saw 
in my dream that I was in the city S., which is in the province 
E., and I saw in my dream that I was standing,' and so Aph. 
Syr., at least for the last clause, 'and I appeared to myself to 
stand in a dream'; so also Theodt., and H, uidi autem in uisione 


esse me super portam Ulai (although Jer. does not recognize this 
point in his comm.). This view was revived by some of the early 
Prot. comm., e.g., Piscator, Polanus, Calv., and it is followed by 
most recent comm., including Stu., Keil, Knab., Wright (p. 171). 
This disposes of the question of historicity of the datum that 
Elam was then a province of Babylonia and not of Media, a 
criticism raised by Bert., and also of the query how could Dan. 
have been in Susa on the king's business (v.") in the last days 
of falling Babylon. Winckler, Vorderasiatische Gesch., 1905, pp. 
54. 85, is disposed to regard Elam, the district of Susa, as still 
belonging to Babylon, and this point is insisted upon by Wilson, 
c. 14. If the scene be visionary, then the seer is appropriately 
transported thither, to the ancient land of Medo-Persia, for the 
setting of the drama of the symbolical contest between that 
Oriental empire and Greece. 

Textually our passage reads very awkwardly with its repeated 
'seeing.' om. the first clause, 'and I saw in the vision, and it 
was in my seeing,' but 0's notorious habit of simplification of 
repetitions does not corroborate his text here. Both (^ and 
om. the second 'and I saw in the vision'; the tr. above follows 
this double evidence in bracketing the phrase, which is unnec- 
essary. It is easy to propose more radical changes; Jahn would 
elide the whole of v.'' with its ref. to the Ulai, which he thinks 
was introduced from v.^^ (but n.h. v.^). Classical Heb. would 
have expressed the visionary character of the scene much more 
exactly (s. Note). This spiritual transportation has its parallel 
in Ezekiel's removal to Jerusalem, Eze. 8, that of the seer to the 
desert in Rev. 17^ For the motive of the river cf. perhaps Gen. 
4i\ Eze. i^ (the Chebar), inf., 9*, 12^ For Shushan, Greek Susa 
(also Neh. i^ and Est.), the chief capital of the Pers. empire, 
s. Paton on Est. i^ (with full bibliography), also Behr., Dr., 
p. 125. Ace. to Meyer, GA 3, §15, Susa was known to the Greeks 
as well as to the Jews as the capital of the Pers. empire. The 
word translated 'burg' is appositive to 'Shushan,' following a 
common Aramaism, does not denote a part of the city, the 
idiom being the same as in the following 'Elam the province' 
(so literally). The word 'province' need not be taken in a tech- 
nical political sense, cj. 3^. The Ulai bears the same name in 
the Akk., is the Classical Eulaeus; it appears in the Syr. at 
Judith i^ for Gr. Hydaspes (= Choaspes?). Among the three 

81- 2 327 

streams near Susa the Ulai can best be identified with an arti- 
ficial canal which connected the rivers Choaspes and Coprates 
and ran close by Susa; s. Behr., Dr., Cheyne, s.v. in EB, who 
give full reff. 

1. nstrNSa] For the incorrect spelling s. at s'", 7'. — ha-^i-^ ijn] For 
the abs. pron. s. note at 7'=. — nnx] Ehr. would relieve the apparent 
redundancy here by supposing that the prep, has qualitative mng., 
'derselben Art seiend.' — '^'tI^^] Nif., either ppl. pointed by careless 
conformation with the pf. nxij sup., or possibly the art. has relative 
force and nxnj is pf., cf. GK §138, i. k.— n'^n.^a] Cf. Gen. 13^ etc.— 2. 
jC'iiro 1JNI \-iNi3 "iHM pina nxixi] \nN-i is evidently part of the jiin; 
similarly inf. v.". For the construction 'Ji •'hm cf. 1 Ki. 22'-; classical 
Heb. would prefer •'Jjn, as Gen. 41^ For the loose syntax of aligned 
rather than of articulated clauses cf. '^^ ics 7'^ — n-i^^n I'^Mtt'] The 
construction of mon is by Aram, idiom, universal in Syr., that of a 
determinative to y.^'Yi'; it does not mean the citadel as distinguished 
from the city, as Paton understands the phrase at Est. i- (with this 
understanding he is embarrassed at 2^). Cf. N,-n^3 21 APO pap. i, 1. i, 
etc. In Ezr. 6^ Nmi33 Nnanxj, the second prep, should be omitted. 
The same construction, unrecognized by comm., appears in 'Casiphia 
the place,' Ezr. 8'^. There are similar unrecognized cases in the N.T., 
s. the writer's Origin of the Gospel ace. to St. John, Philadelphia, 1923, 
15. renders the word by ^ipt? (also elsewhere = '2. jinix, S3\n), 
on which s. H. Lewy, Die sent. Fremdworter im Griechlschen, 1895, 182. 
But now the correct form is found in ^tpxa [ttjc; 'AtAfj-avcTcSoi;] ( = 
'Arak el-Emir) in the Zenon papp. of age of Ptolemy II; s. Vincent, 
'La Pa'estine dans les papyrus ptolemaiques de Gerza,' RB 1920, 161 
ff., text p. 182. — As noted in Comm. the introd. clause ■'nxna . . . nx-ixi 
is om. by 0; it is supplied by Or^ Lu. 05 appears to have read it 
but with paraphrase. The subsequent ptnj riN-iNi was om. by orig. 
(& (supplied in Hex.), and by 0, suppl. by Or^-CLu. — ''n^n ijni] The 
use of ^niin here vs. its absence in the parallel clause above is notice- 
able; it is rather an Aram, idiom. — '-""^ '^?"'^ '^"-] The nouns in const, 
relation, cf. '"^1? "^^K '^^is, rt. Sai (= Arab, wabala, Akk. abdli() = 
'conduit,' a 'lead' of water. The word = -Pi' Jer. 178, '^T- Is. 30^, 
44^ The stem wbal > ilbal {cf. ufaz > ufaz loO, with loss of initial 
consonant in the Akk. field, and with this form the more Hebraic yubal 
corresponds. Otherwise Kon., Lgb., ii, i, p. 88, taking Sav, S21X as 
kutal form. The VSS vary much. ItX ttoO OugaX, ignoring ■hyu, 
Sym. alone has above mng., rdg. ace. to Jer., super paludem Oulal. 
Others transUterated, so Aq. ace. to Jer., super Oubal Oulai, and Lu. 
(48 231 c) Ixl ToG Ou^aXouXa, so also for '':'in v.'^ (but 48 231 and also 


at vv/- '' 22 OuXtxt); ^nd so &. Another tradition interprets '?3in 'gate': 
(go xpbq T^ tcuXt) AtXatx = (8^. xuXt^ was had by identifying Saw with 
JAram., Syr. abbulld = Akk. abullu, 'gateway.' So "B, super portatn 
Ulai. For "'Sin resort was apparently had to the architectural term 
nSiN = oS'x 'portico,' i Ki. 6^, etc., s. Stade ad loc, and Lexx. A 
goes its own way in combining these renderings: here /I kurati l-'ahwdz 
{al-ahwdz = modern Arabistan), but in v.^ {cf. v}^) for xpb tou OOpaX 
kiidddnia d-dahltz, 'before the portico'; s. Gehman, pp. 339, 348. Sa. 
has here a geographical paraphrase; he agrees with Sym. in under- 
standing SaiN as a canal (lloc) rather than a river, 'by the canal {sdf) 
of the river Ulai.' Ra., AEz., Jeph. correctly understand 'x 'x as 'river 
Ulai'; PsSa. has, "by the gate of the building called Ulai; the Wise 
call a great gate ^Sin ^Sijn." 

3. 4. The vision of the two-horned ram, symbol of Media and 
Persia. 3. And I lifted up my eyes [i.e., I looked], and saw: 
and, behold, there stood in front of the stream a ram with two horns ; 
and the two horns were high, and one higher than the other, and 
the higher coming up last. 4. I saw the ram butting [EW push- 
ing] to the west and the north and the south; no beasts could stattd 
before him and there was none to deliver from him, and he was 
doing according to his will and was acting greatly. The ram, like 
the males of the other domesticated cattle, is a type of power 
and so of princely leadership, e.g., Eze. 34^^ ('I will judge be- 
tween sheep and sheep, between the rams and the bucks'), and 
the word for ram, h'^ii, appears to be used as actual synonym 

for 'prince'; so GB, Kon., Hwb., with less certainty as to identi- 
fication BDB 17b, 1 8a. Hav. has collected similar reff. from the 
Gr., Arab., and OPers., and Bev. instances Arab. kabS 'ram' = 
'warrior'; for a compilation of references on these animals s. 
Bochart, Hierozoicon, 2, cc. 43. 51. For the horns as type of 
strength s. Comm. at 7*, here they represent the two constituent 
parts of an empire. The moments of the vision of the horns 
well represent the relation of Media and Persia in power and 
time. The other ' beasts ' that could not stand up against them 
presuppose c. 7. Persia was the Far-Oriental empire to the 
Semitic world, hence the expansion only to three points of the 
compass is stated, although, against some comm., the far-east- 
ern conquests of Persia were known, cf. Est. i^ 'from India to 
Ethiopia'; accordingly (g adds 'to the east.' 'Act greatly' is 
preferable to AV 'become great,' RW JV 'magnify self; the 

8^""^ 329 

vb. is used in a good sense, e.g., of God, Ps. 1262- ^, more often 

in a bad sense, so below w.^- "• ^s, Jer. 4826- ^\ Job I9^ etc., 
with the attendant nuance of afifectation = 'act big'; cf. the 
'mouth speaking big things,' 7-°. 

3. ^^^!] For use as indef. art. s. on in 2"; om., 05 eva txiyav. — 
^V-l?,] Bis and v.^ The pointing must be explained as M's combina- 
tion of du. and pi.; cf. ='.?"ll Pr. 28«- ^^ and for the other exx. s. Stade, 
Lehrb., §339. N.b. the problem of the duals in c. 7, s. at v.^.— D^jipni] 
Orig. CS, H om. as superfluous. — n'^yyn] Classical Heb. would use 
nnxn. — njinNDJ = 'afterwards,' cf. Dt. 131°, etc. (S attaches to v.''. — 
4. mjr] So the Pael, of an ox Dt. 33", of a sheep Eze. 34". For the 
use of the ppl. as secondary predicate s. other cases inf., e.g., vv.''- ". It 
is rare in early Heb., but note a case in Nu. 11'°. — For 'west, north and 
south' of 1^ (S has 'east, north, west and south,' prob. understanding 
^?- as '^?'' ('the Jay-rise'!). OrC (A 106 230 al.) has plus [votov] xal 
Xf^a, a gloss explaining xaxa OaXaaaav; so for 31J?D v.^ — vjflS (5 has 
6xiff(i> [ajToO], by scribal error, eoTT^aav evwxtov > ear. omaw; CSSmg 
correctly. — PZ'•;^] Correct pf. with waw-consec, and so Snjm. — 
Snjn] For such intrans. (operative) Hifils cf. GK §53, f, and Arab, 
stem IV, Wright, Gr. i, §45, Rem. c. 

5-7. The vision of the one-horned buck and his contest with 
the ram. 5. And I was discerning, and behold, a buck coming 
from the west over the whole earth and not touching the ground 
[earth]; and the buck had a conspicuous horn between his eyes. 
6. And he came to the two-horned ram which I had seen standing 
in front of the stream, and he ran at him in the fury of his power. 
1. And I saw him coming close to the ram, and he was enraged 
against him, and he smote the ram and broke his two horns ; and 
there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him 
down to the ground and trampled him, and there was none to deliver 
the ram from him. The fresh moment is introduced by a further 
statement of the seer's continued observation. Cf. the intro- 
duction of the little horn 7^ 'I was contemplating.' The vb. 
translated 'discern' means 'to distinguish,' 'to make out' ob- 
jects, and then, as later in the book, e.g., v.", 'to understand,' 
intellegere. For the buck (or he-goat, Heb. 'goat-buck') as t>pe 
of power and so a synonym for princes, cf. Is. 14^ h'Z \\ Cli 
ps •'liny. Zee. io3 cmny |1 □■'Vl (sheep as oppressed by 
goats). The relation between the two animals, the ram and the 


goat, is not that of worth, as in the descending series in the 
visions of the metals and the beasts in cc. 2 and 7, but of power. 
The goat naturally overcomes the ram, just as in Eze. 34^ and 
Zech. 10^ the Lord must intervene between his people, the feeble 
sheep, and the rough goats. The wild goat, of some species, is 
a fierce enough animal to be represented in the contests of Gil- 
gamesh, s. W. H. Ward, Cylinders and Other Ancient Oriental 
Seals, nos. ig f. Hav. aptly cites a vision related by Plutarch 
in his Sidla, c. 28: there was seen a vision of two large goats 
fighting, attacking and receiving blows, just as is the case with 
men fighting — which presaged the fall of the younger Marius. 
The view that the goat was taken to symbolize Alexander's em- 
pire because the goat figures in the legends of the Macedonian 
house and the composition of Macedonian place-names {e.g., 
the old residence of the dynasty ^Egse and the Macedonian epi- 
thet iEgeades) was proposed by Medus, and has been accepted 
by some comm., e.g., Hav., dEnv.; but this habit of finding 
'inner (secondary) conformities' (Hav.) between the type and 
the object has ever been one of the fallacies of interpretation of 
the book. Had correspondences of this kind been chosen, rather 
the two-horned ram would have typified Alexander, who, ace. 
to Clem. Alex., Cohort, ad gentes, iv (ed. Potter, i, p. 48), had 
himself represented with two horns to prove himself the son of 
the ram-headed Libyan Ammon, a trait which appears in the 
Seleucide coinage and which gave rise to the Arabic epithet for 
Alexander Du l-lzarnain, ' he-of-the-two-horns ' {e.g., Koran, 18. 
82), the exact equivalent, by the way, of D*'i^p ^J?i, the epi- 
thet for the Pers. ram in v.^. See Hav., p. 258, vLeng., p. 369, 
giving the elder literature, and Babelon, I.e. in Comm. at 7*. 
The single horn of the goat, as v.^ certainly shows, represents 
the first of the Greek dynasty, the great Alexander. The uni- 
corn animal has its prototype in the Bab.-Ass. monuments, e.g., 
the sirussu, and other representations of one-horned animals, a 
detail which arose from the artist depicting the animal from one 
side so that the two horns are merged into one. This feature 
also appears in the archaic inlaid bulls in the temple discovered 
at Tell el Obeid, in 1923-24; s. Mtiseum Journal (Univ. Penna. 
Museum), March, 1924, cut p. 26. On the Biblical 'unicorn' in 
general s. Haupt, SBOT Psalms (Eng.), 172/. For the plastic 
background of this contest of beasts Hav. draws attention to 

8«-^ 331 

the mythological representations in the ruins of Persepolis; and 
the abundant material, from the art, large and small, of Baby- 
lonia corroborates this happy comparison. 

Several items are distinguished in the he-goat's progress. He 
comes 'from the west.' 'He went over the whole earth': comm. 
have long compared the description of Alex.'s conquests in 
I Mac. i^: 'He went through to the ends of the earth and took 
spoils of a multitude of nations; and the earth was quiet before 
him,' etc. The rapidity of his progress, 'not touching the 
ground,' is a reminiscence of the classical description of Cyrus, 
Is. 4i2- ^, who 'pursues and passes on in peace. Not going on the 
road with his feet.' VLeng. cites a Classical parallel from Verg., 
Aen., vii, 806/., e.g., 'Ferret iter, celeres nee tingeret aequore 
plantas.' The 'conspicuous horn' is Alexander; for the much- 
mooted adj. as rendered after the most ancient and most com- 
mon authority s. Note. 6. 7 capitally describe the impetuosity 
of Alex.'s attack upon Persia and the helpless, utter fall of that 
empire. This and the following v. (with the echoes in lo^o, 
ii3. 4) give us the only memory of the great Alexander definitely 
preserved by the Jews in their Scriptures. 

5. par:] The Hif. = 'distinguish, discern.' Cf. S^nirn 78.— i^fls 
Q>r;n] For etymology of 'i" s. Bev., GB; the word is Aram., occurring 
Ezr. 6^^ in this combination, in Heb. 2 Ch. 29=1, Ezr. 8^^; cf. the usual 
'>'n -\^-;z'; inf. y.~^ n^v^i-n n^osn. The art. in 'yn is inexplicable and 
lacks in <B 0; either it is conformed to 'j?n v.« {cf. a case in Ecc. 10", 
where the Kr. corrects the art. in a>DJ3n), or the whole vocable should 
be omitted, and so actually OrP ignores it; this Aquilanic (?) testimony 
is noteworthy. — an;::] The word, late in Heb., occurs also in the papp., 
e.g., APA papp. C, D. — ;J1J J-'n] i^n has become a sheer negative, so 
also ]03 pN V." {q.v.), and prob. a case Pr. 29^' nj>-D px = (g odx, 
uxay.ouasTat (s. GB, p. 603b). Class. Heb. demands urx, which Ehr. 
with good reason requires here, as lost by haplog. — '"''"7 PP] All recent 
comm. tr. 'n (which recurs at v.*, q.v.) by 'conspicuous' (JV) or the 
like, after the Hex. plus in C5 and 0, g> (xinnm), 1 (insigne = AV RVV 
'notable'), Jeph., Ra., most early Prot. comm. Comparison may be 
made with nx-iD u'in 2 Sa. 23^'. mm is a noun from the act. ppl. stem 
with abstract sufTix; cf. Heb. '^'■"'^ = Aram. ''''^\, our word retaining 
the Aram, -a-; cf. Earth, Nb., §98, Brock., VG i, §126. G. Hoffmann, 
ZATW 1883, pp. 95/., would point r^^'q as sup. 4.^- '' and in Syr., but 
perhaps that case should be revised to the form here. The noun can 
mean either the action or the object of the action. But Sa. with mu- 


!Sa"ab and AEz. with laiDc, also Gr.Ven xlpag aufjixXox^.; derive the 
word from Ttn, 'ramify, interlace.' JDMich., Suppl. i, 703, proposed 
'"'"1', 'sharpness,' so deWette, Bert. As for the Grr., cm. 'n, which 
Or^c Lu. suppl., eswpTjxdv. Orig. (8 ev, i.e., rdg. rns (which Ehr. pre- 
fers). Cf. ^ sTspa = 'n v.*. He.x. adds OswpTjTov. The adj. nSij 
vv.^- '^ favors ^ and the common interpretation. — 6. a^j-ipn hy^] Cf. 
□i<3J2n h-j2, Ecc. 10-°, and s. GK §128, u; for the Arab, correspondents 
s. Wright, Gr. 2, §81. — ncn^] mss, supported by ?Cwzb j-„ impetu, 
have Iv 6p[Ji.i3, error for ev Spyi^, which Chrys. reads. — 7. vriiNii] The 
pf. with 'weak,' not consec. waw; for this freq. usage of later Heb. s. 
Driver, Tenses, §133. F. T. Kelley, 'The Imperfect with Simple Waw 
in Hebrew,' JBL 1920, 1-23, cites, pp. 21 /., many of the cases in Dan., 
and attempts to pursue his thesis that there is some purpose in the 
variation, but, as this case proves, in vain. — Ssx] Cf. v." and 2 Ch. 
28'^, uniquely with vb. of motion; in adverse sense also lo'^. — -\mDni] 
The Hithpalpel also 11", in a variant to BSira 38'^ and in Syr., e.g., 
Acts 17'^. — PN his] As 62 147 show, Aq. tr. with his customary auv, 
and so in subsequent cases. — S1N3] tw xpty, but ICwzb /,j ariete in- 
dicates orig. £v, which is read by 62 147. — '>^ no n>n nSi] Cf. inf. ii^^ 
and I Sa. 28-°. — h'<nh Ssd nin nS] = V^ixd ps Is. 5-', etc.; h is posses- 

8-12. The vision of the great horn, continued, of the four 
horns, and of the Httle horn that grew up. 8. And the buck 
was acting exceeding greatly; and when he was strong, the great 
horn was broken ; and there came up [gloss, conspicuousness ] four 
in its place to the four winds of heaven. 9. And out of one of them 
came forth another horn, a little one, and it waxed exceeding great, 
toward the south and toward the east [gloss, and toward the Desire]. 
The buck stands consistently for the Greek empire; its founder 
Alexander, the great horn, 'was broken.' The four kingdoms, 
represented by the four horns, are apparently the four kingdoms 
of the Diadochi, Macedonia (under Cassander), Thrace and 
Asia Minor (Lysimachus), 'Asia' or Syria (Seleucus), Egypt 
(Ptolemy). These suitably correspond to the four points of the 
compass, west, north, east, south. The passage is cited at 11*. 
Behr.'s criticism upon this view is the query: "What one of the 
readers of our book knew of this; and if he did how did it con- 
cern him?" However, the traditional remains of the ancient 
proud monarchies must have long survived. This has been the 
almost constant interpretation of the four, with variations as 
to the names of the Diadochi, since the beginning: of Hipp., iv, 



26, Jer., Theodt., Aph. Syr., Polych., with the modern excep- 
tion of those who find here the Roman and post-Roman ages. 
For the alleged gloss in v.* s. Note. In v.^ a slight amendment of 
the orig. text has been made, following Bev. and most subse- 
quent comm., viz., by the shifting and change of one letter (13 
to n), making the orig. 'a horn out of a little' (whatever that 
may mean) read 'another horn, a little one,' which is the exact 
Heb. equivalent of the Aram, in y^ If Ant. Epiph, be meant 
there, he must be found here. By the expansion of the horn 
toward the south are meant Ant.'s campaigns in Egypt, only 
frustrated by Rome, and by that 'to the east' the prospected 
campaigns against Parthia, beginning 166-5, which terminated 
in his death in Elymais 165-4. A third point of direction is 
given in ^, 'to the Delight,' which is commonly interpreted as 
in the several Eng. VSS, 'the pleasant,' or 'glorious,' or 'beau- 
teous (land),' on the basis of ii^®- ^^, which passages, however, 
have the desiderated word 'land.' The Note argues for the ex- 
clusion of the phrase as a gloss, which cannot have the alleged 
mng. by itself, which was not so translated by the VSS and 
early comm., and which is absurd when aligned with two given 
points of the compass, in which matter the book is remarkably 

10. And it waxed great even to the host of heaven, and it made 
fall to the earth some of the host, yea of the stars some of them it 
trampled. With few exceptions, to be noted below, the universal 
interpretation of 'the host of heaven' and its synonym 'the 
stars' is that they refer tropically to God's people: Jer., 'the 
sons of Israel, who are intrenched by the help of angels ' ; Polych. 
definitely, 'the Maccabees'; Aph. Syr., 'the sacerdotal order'; 
and so variously the subsequent views, on which no improvement 
has been made since Pole's digest: the Church, the saints, etc. 
For the trope of the stars we are referred to 12^, 'they shall 
shine ... as the stars,' cf. Mt. 13''^. (On the Judaistic combi- 
nation of the saints and the stars s. Volz, Jiid. Esch., 360 f.) 
This interpretation of 'the host (SD^) of heaven' is obtained 
from the word in its commonplace sense of 'army,' etc., and 
hence of the Maccabees, etc.; or as of 'service' and so techni- 
cally 'liturgical service' of the priests, e.g., i<D^ '^b.'Hh Nu. 4^3, 

T T ; • 

8^, etc. (s. Lexx.). But none can easily understand 'the host 
of heaven' otherwise than of 'the heavenly host,' which is rein- 


forced by the synonymous 'stars' and by the phrase 'Prince of 
the host,' v.i° = ' God of hosts,' etc. Evidently Ant.'s presump- 
tion against heaven and its denizens is referred to. The difficulty 
of the common interpretation is felt by Jer., who tr. in his 
comm. ^uelut stellas coeli' and Keil, who insists that this is a 
vision in which the host and the stars only figure earthly affairs. 
For the customary interpretation ref. is made to En. 46^, 'These 
are they who judge the stars of heaven. And raise their hands 
against the Most High, And tread upon the earth and dwell 
upon it,' where the comm. {e.g., Beer, Cha.) interpret 'the stars' 
from the common understanding of the word here; but rather, 
the stars and the Most High are grouped together as heavenly 
ones. (Cha. attempts to rewrite the v. in En. so as to make it 
agree almost verbatim with that in Dan.) Hav. notes the citation 
in 2 Mac. 9^0, ' And the man that a little afore supposed himself 
to touch the stars of heaven (following (i>'s plus 'of heaven'), 
no one could endure for his stench,' which definitely agrees with 
the interpretation here followed. There is another passage in 
the Bible, ignored by the comm. here, which cites and interprets 
the v., viz., Rev. 12^, where, of the great dragon with seven heads 
and ten horns, it is told that 'his tail sweeps the third of the 
stars of heaven and casts them to the earth' (with independent 
tr.., e^aXev ek r. ^yrjv). Gunkel naturally handled this passage 
as a mythological trait, Schopfung, 387 {cf. Bousset, ad loc): 
"This can only be understood as an setiological myth. The Bab. 
science found in the heaven a vacant space, the origin of which 
is to be explained by this myth." The present writer's result is 
that the allusion was to Ant.'s God-defying arrogance, for which 
the seer had in mind the classical diatribe against Babel in Is. 
14, esp. w.^2-i5_ That blasphemous monarch's defiance of the 
gods in general was part at least of the Jewish tradition, s. ii 
^^-^^, with which cf. the general statement in i Mac. i^'^ of Ant.'s 
edict against the Religion. This view, independently reached, 
was more than anticipated by G. F. Moore in his article, ' Daniel 
viii. 9-14' in JBL 15 (1896), 193-7. It is sufficient to refer to 
this summary but compelling paper. He notes, inter al., the 
sacrilegious attempt of Ant. upon the temple of Nanaea in Ely- 
mais. As Moore observes, the stars are frequently identified 
with gods, e.g., Dt. 4^^ Is. 24^1 «-, En. 80^. He notes that this 
interpretation has been maintained by Smend, ZATW 4, 201-, 

8^-^^ 335 

and AUtest. Religions geschichte^, 452, and with this view agrees 
a brief remark by Volz, I.e., 361. And last but not least, it should 
be noted that Jephet in the loth cent, gave the same interpreta- 
tion: "Then it seemed to him as though it had risen to the host 
of heaven and thrown some of them down. ' The host of heaven ' 
very likely refers to the seven planets, Saturn and sarkd (?). 
Then it seemed to him as though it trampled the stars on the 
ground; and then as though the horn went in to the captain of 
the host and the mightiest of it; but it does not say that the 
horn did anything with the captain of the host more than that 
'it magnified itself.'" 

11. 12 constitute crescendo the most difficult short passage 
of the bk. The early VSS read the same quantum of text; this 
is true even of the expanded and disfigured text of <§ when it is 
shorn of its glosses. For the texts of the VSS, which give but 
Httle help, s. Note at end of the chap. 11 presents less difficulty 
of the two: And even up to [i.e., right up to the face of] the Prince 
of the host he acted greatly [cf. v."*], and by him [or, from him] 
was removed [so J^v.; Kt. he removed] the Constant (sacrifice), and 
was rejected the place of his [i.e., the Prince's] sanctuary. 'The 
Prince of the host' (properly a military term, generalissimo, 
Gen. 21^2 and often) is the same as 'the Prince of princes' (cf. 
' God of gods,' 2", q.v.) and can be none other than God, ' the 
God of Hosts,' as is accepted by almost all comm., even those 
who take 'the host,' v.^", in a contrary sense. Aph. Syr., Grot, 
are consistent with the prevailing exegesis of that v. in finding 
in the prince of the host the high priest Onias; for this sacerdotal 
use of 'prince' cf. i Ch. 24^ etc. Polych. finds here 'the presid- 
ing angel of the nation,' and AEz. Michael, following the clew 
of the use of the word for angels in lo^^- ^o, cf. Jos. 5"; in Targ. 
to Ps. 137^ Michael is the prince of Jerusalem. The combination 
of the vb. with the prep, is very pregnant, 'right up to'; again 
with reminiscence of Is. 14, e.g., v.^^. In the pron. 'he,' vs. the 
fern, ('it') otherwise depending upon the gender of 'horn,' the 
writer has inadvertently dropped his figure; it is sometimes over- 
looked by critics that even a writer's autograph may contain 
errors, vs. vGall, Einheitlichkeit, 51, and Moore, I.e., 197, who 
would read the fem. We may take it that the ultimate sense of 
the variations 'by him . . . was removed' and 'from him {i.e., 
God) he removed,' is the same. 'From him' is the rendering of 


H B RW JV; 'by him,' i.e., the horn, of Grr., AV; the former 
interpretation is more commonly adopted. The conflict of voices 
between the Kt. and Kr., which is as old as the VSS, is doubt- 
less due to the contrary interpretations of the prep. 'The Con- 
stant,' T'Cnn, is the technical abbreviation for the 'constant 

holocaust' or 'whole burnt-ofifering of perpetuity,' "I'»Dn n^y, 

which in the late ritual of Judaism was offered in a lamb morn- 
ing and evening of every day; cf. 9-^ and Ex. 29^^-^^; see Nowack, 
Heb. Arch. 2, 221 /., and Edersheim, The Temple, c. 8. Cf. 
oXoKavTco/xara Kvpicp to irpooLvov Kal to SciXlvov^ i Esd. 5^^. 
The abbreviated term appears only here and w.^^- ", ii^^, 12'^ 
in the Bible, but is common in the Talmud. These two daily 
sacrifices were the basis and expression of the whole cult, and 
that the two are meant is proved by the ' 2300 evenings, morn- 
ings,' v.i'*, which figure is to be divided by two to obtain the 
number of days. The word for 'place,' jl^D, not the usual 
□IptS, is rare, implying a construction, a base, e.g., Ezr. 3^ (the 
base of the altar), Ps. 89^^, or a dwelling, and so used esp. of 
God's abode, either on earth, e.g.. Is. 4^ or in heaven, i Ki. 8^^ 
The vb. here translated 'was rejected' is generally rendered 
'was cast down,' as in vv.'- ^^ But the vb. implies both 'throw 
down' and 'throw away,' deiicere and reiicere, e.g., Neh. 9^*, = 
'despise,' and this nuance is properly proposed here by Ehr. As 
Dr. remarks, the temple does not seem to have been literally 
' cast down ' ; however, it is described as having been ' laid waste 
like a wilderness' and 'trampled down,' i Mac. i^^, 3^^; ace. to 
4*^, the Jews ' (re)built the holy place.' 

12a. A}id a host shall he given (or, set) upon (or, against) the 
Constant in iniquity ; so 1^ literally. The gender agreement be- 
tween subj. and vb. is most improbable, and the future tense 
is out of place. Attempts at translation may be exemplified 
from H: rohiir autem datum est ei contra iuge sacrificium propter 
peccata ; so practically g> = GV AV, but ' a host ' for rohur ; RVV 
JV, 'and the host was given over to it together with (following 
the Zurich Bible, also CBMich.) the continual burnt-offering 
through transgression'; Dr., 'and a host (or, a warfare) was un- 
dertaken against the continual burnt-offering with transgression 
{i.e., wickedly)'; etc. Grot, interprets 'host' of Ant.'s garrison 
in the Akra. Sa. om. the prep., 'the stars (so S3^ throughout^ 

8^-^^ 337 

laid low the Constant.' Ra., Calv. think of 'a determined time' 
( ?) ; Hav. of a corps of Jews who had perverted to (' were given 
to') the innovation, and somewhat similarly vLeng., but 'were 
surrendered to.' For the first word of the v., t<^i*1 'and a host,' 
the Grr. depart peculiarly from ^ in finding a vb., s. Note at 
end of the chap. ; but no help to the sense is obtained. Emenda- 
tion has naturally been attempted. VGall, p. 51, deletes fr^^il 
(but hardly on the authority of the Grr., as he and Lohr allege), 
corrects the vb. into a past, jn^m, om. the prep, 'in [sin],' 

and so obtains, 'und es wurde gelegt auf das tagliche Opfer 
Frevel,' which Mar. follows. Moore, p. 196, following Bert., 
also om. i<3^1, reads jrim, and tr., 'and it (the horn) put 

on the daily sacrifice the Iniquity.' He eft. the 'desolating 
Iniquity,' v.^^ = 'the Abomination of Desolation,' 9", etc. But 
such an obscure expression as 'putting the Iniquity on the sac- 
rifice' can only be defended by stressing the element of inten- 
tional obscurity. Bert., who preceded in this line of emendation, 
tr. T^n hi), 'in place of the Constant,' and eft. Gen. 28^ But 
we expect such a phrase as is found in i Mac. 6^, to ^hekvyfia 
(pKoS6fjbT)a€v iirl to dvcnacrr^piov. Jahn, who regards v.^^ as 
a doublet to v.", has a similar interpretation, but retaining 
i>*2^1, in which he finds ns::f1 'filth,' and tr., 'und Unrath (?) 

wird freventlich an das bestandige Opfer getan.' For another 
essay might be proposed iH^ imD'if-1 (borrowing a noun from 

' T T 

the Aram.; a similar opinion given by PsSa., but with ref. to 
the divine will): 'and his will he set against (or, upon) the Con- 
stant.' But emendations are not better than plausible. 

12b. And it cast down truth to the ground, and it wrought and 
prospered: so Eng. VSS. But the sequence of the Heb. tenses, 
better observed by B, is difficult. The subj. of the fem. vbs. 
would be 'the horn.' By rdg. the first vb. as a pass, and with 
waw consec. (r|^*jm for Tj^kl^m), with 2MSS de R., the VSS, 

vGall, Kamp., Mar., is obtained, 'and the truth was cast down 

to the ground.' But 'the horn' must still be understood as the 

subj. of the following vbs., nrT'^i'n'l . . . nriw'yi; these perfs. 

may possibly be regarded as frequentative, 'was doing,' etc. 

Moore, denying this probability, makes the observation that 

these vbs. may have been introduced here from v.^^, a likely sug- 


gestion, relieving the change of subjects. 'The truth/ nOX, is 
not the abstract truth, as in i Esd. 4^^^-, but the True Rehgion 
as embodied in the Scriptures, esp. the Tliorah (c/. the concrete 
use of ^ip), and so nD« min Mai. 2^; cf. the Pauline v 

bXr]6ua Iv tw vofitp Rom. 2-°. So Ra., AEz., and most recent 
comm. A concrete historical ref. is found in Ant.'s destruction 
of the sacred books, i Mac. i^*^-. The Gr. paraphrase, v ^i-fcciio- 
(Tvvrj (so (^ at 8^^), is not so 'flat' as Hav. judges, for there is 
meant 'the righteousness that is in the Law'; ^ KtJ'nip. For 
'wrought and prospered' cf. 2 Ch. 3121, etc.; for 'do, work' used 
absolutely cf. ii-*- ^"^ ^^, Ps. 22^^^ etc., mostly of divine activity. 

8. '"^Ft?] 3 of time at which, as often; cf. on rfja^D 4.^^; for the phrase 
cf. inprnD n^.— •"''"?] (at least B V 130) Or? Lu. om., and B follows 
suit; but the early presence of a word here is attested by <& sxspa, i.e., 
as '^''"'0''?. and so Or^. (A plus xspaxa is also read by (S U.) @'s rdg. 
has been accepted by Gratz, Bev., Kamp., Pr., Dr., Lohr, Cha. But it 
is to be noted that (B renders nirn, v.^, as though it were nns, and its 
testimony may not be accepted too easily here. Ehr. remarks that the 
order should be I'^nns j;3"\n, cf. 12^ It is best to regard rvn as an early 
gloss, relating the v. to v.\ Ra. tr. by nxio, and Behr. compares the 
word with '"^'"^l Eze. i^, which awkwardly gives another sense than 
here in v.^, while we should expect 3 or n«nD3, cf. v.'^ The most com- 
mon interpretation attempts to relate the word with v.^; so S> ptnncn; 
the early Prot. comm., AV RVV CBMich., Rosen., vLeng., Hitz., Stu., 
Keil, Mein., al., with various interpretative essays. Sa. and AEz. repeat 
their interpretations from v.^, and so JDMich., Bert. — mnn ;,'3ix'? 
aiDw'n] Cf. 7-, 11^ Behr. notes that h is not necessarily Sn, and should 
be translated r.azi, as in Is. 32^ desiring to forestall an exact historical 
interpretation ; but the parallelism of the four horns and the four quar- 
ters may be objected to this fine point. 

9. anc] For lack of agreement in gender with antecedent s. on 
DnxpD i^; also mss pc.— Ni-'] For similar lack of agreement s. GK 
§145, 7-— '^T>^?'? ^"'^ Pi""] For rt. vs = nyt s. GB igia, with bibliog- 
raphy. Bev. suggested the correction ^"V^ ^"^"^ Pi"' = exactly nnx pp 
n-i>;'T 7', accepted by all subsequent comm. exc. Behr. and adopted 
here; n.b. the similarity of d and n in the papp. Graetz had earlier pro- 
posed omitting c. The troublesome word has provoked a large number 
of conjectures, (i) With n regarded as the prep.: Bert. tr. adjectivally, 
'kleinwinzig,' so Ges., Thes., 805, i.e., 'of a small character,' eft. ''^..^.}^ 
Ru. 2^°, on which it may be here remarked that the form unamended 
(vs. ^''SxjD in Kittel's marg.) has its counterpart in an Arab, idiom of 
mill, s. Wright, Gr. 2, p. 138, B-D. Zock. obtains an adv. phrase, eft. 

8'-^' 339 

^•'S'' p 2^, and tr. 'in a small way.' V Leng.proposed a nominal use, 
'von Kleinheit,' eft. ]\so Is. 41-^ cf. GB^" e paruis initiis, and Behr., 
'von geringerer Wiirde.' Or, regarding p as comparative, CBMich. eft. 
S^nn minus quant uaniias, Ps. 62*", j^n:; phisquam non, Jer. 10^; and 
so Kon., Syntax, §352, z, Hwb., s.v., desiderates tninus quam parua. On 
this vLeng. remarks that 'more than a httle' can also mean 'ziemlich 
gross,' and so he acutely explains the iaxupov of the Grr. Or (2) another 
form is found: Ew., Lehrh., §270, h, n. i, suggested the ppl. '^T^-??, 
which Behr. criticises, since it must mean 'becoming small' (or 'doing 
small things')- Others, as cited by CBMich., compared "'^?? Gen. 
19-°, here s with dag. euphonicum, and so Earth., Nb., §165, finds a 
unique miktil adj. form, with which he eft. the (dubious) Akk.-Aram. 
viisken. And (3) the Aram. rt. "i/S, in act. forms 'despise,' is compared, 
so Ra., who tr. mjJiXD and eft. Ob^ while JDMich., Suppl., 2124, in 
agreement with Syr. Pael tr. 'blaspheming.' EVV follow T^ (modieum) 
and early Prot. comm. in translating as an adj., 'httle.' (Si rd. xlpa? 
iaxuphv £v = v.. £v lax. ^ tr. 'sD 'little' = H. 3lWzb^ cornu in 
idrtute, i.e., understanding sv as ev and manipulating ta/. accordingly. — 
nn''] Also as adv.. Is. 56'-, BSira 8" = BAram. niTiv — Sni 3Jjn Sx 
i3xn Sni n-iT::n] (g rd. the three terms, krl ii.EffTi[j.p?iav, dvaxoXcis, 
§op?av, i.e., ^Ti7\ as though ]^Si^i7\■^ Q only the first and third, xp^j; t. 
vcTov, T. oivatAiv, i.e., "':3i'n as ^!3i^"l, as v.^" (in Q 230 232 233 = A 
Suatv for Suvatitv by easy and seductive error); Or^c Lu. supply the 
second term, avaToXifiv. §• om. the third term. The eldest evidence 
thus supports the three terms; why© om. the second is not evident. 
There is no reason with Houbigant (cited by Bert.) and Jahn to accept 
(S's perversion of the text to 'the north'; it is interesting that Sa. has the 
same interpretation, 'to Syria {e's-sdm), that is, the north.' The third 
term is now almost universally interpreted as = '•^jH i'in n'*'", so 
Prot. comm. generally after the Jewish comm., EW ('pleasant, beau- 
teous land'), also dEnv., Knab. vs. B. But how can the word in itself 
stand for that phrase? Hardly so unless that phrase had already oc- 
curred and here were a reminiscence. And then why the explicit phrase 
later? Parallels offered, e.g., nr: Eze. 44^ (Geier), are not forcible for 
this context. And how absurd is the geography: 'to the south, to the 
east, and to Palestine ' ! Note that © is followed by Jer., contra forti- 
tudinetn, the latter in his comm. identifying xas v.'" with 'the sons 
of Israel,' and so Polych. In sum, the oldest exegesis had no suspicion 
of the modern interpretation. If & deliberately omitted the word, this 
may have been for lack of a suitable understanding. In ii'^- *'• ^' 
tr. ''3xn consistently with aapaetv. I am forced to conclude that ^3sn 
here is not original but an early plus, prob. a gloss to the foil. X3S 13;, 
and that actually read n3S here, ^3X then being a later assimilation 
to the geographical term '•^^^ in c. 11. 


10. Di3Di3n )Di] With Piscator, CBMich., al., waw explicative, 'even 
of the stars,' cf. Zech. 9', 'upon an ass and upon a colt the foal of a she- 
ass' (Hitz.); s. on cnpi T>y 41". — (g goes its own way in interpreta- 
tion; for DiciTi N3'i sw;; T. (ZGTspwv ToO oupavoO, and for dodidh pi 
aico T. ddTspwv X. ixb aJTciv (poss. a doublet). (5 thus identified the 
host with the stars. The vbs. in v.^ are put in the pass., • "0 = sppayj)ri 
(v.'' = 3in), cd:d-i.i = x.aT£T:aTT)9T]. tr. ^sn as Kal, Ixsasv, with the 
following partitives for subject. For (2)Dd-\.t B al. auvs'iia-rTjaav, error 
for -aev, which is exhibited in Or^ Lu. Q 42 230 A, corroborated by 
Jjwzb conculcaidt. — 11. ijcd] The prep, can be used, but rarely, with 
the agent after the pass. Behr. tr. ' seinerseits,' but which 'side' he 
means is not obvious. — a''in Kt., ^y}_ Kr.] The Hif. has the mng. 'to 
lift up,' and then 'to remove,' e.g., Is. 57'^, Eze. 21", and so constantly 
of the ritual 'removal' of parts of sacrifice; Behr. finds here a sarcastic 
allusion to ritual practice. The pass., Hof., was read here with ^r. by 
Grr.; the act., ffif., with Kt. by B &, i.e., by the 4th cent, the change had 
come in. Prob. the change was made so as to define the antecedent of 
ucc. The Hof. is preferable in alignment with "I-"f'7, is not to be ex- 
plained, with Keil, as a conformation to the latter. Ew., Lehrb., §115, 
d, Olshausen, Lehrb., §259, b, Kon., Lgb., i, 502 f, Behr. regard the Kt. 
as an antique Hof. form, but most unnecessarily. — "l-'f'71] With weak 
waw. Hitz., Kamp. would read the abs. inf. Hif. 1. 'f'^l, but the pass, is 
supported by (8 and prob. by (which misread the Heb.). 

12. N3x] For the assumed fem. gender in construction with jnjn 
cf. nxis n^vSn Is. 40-, where, however, as Bev. notes, the vb. can be 
construed as act., 'accomplished her service'; for discussion of the gen- 
der s. reff. in GB. All interpretations of njs are unsuccessful; s. Comm. 
If an intrusion— although some word was found here by (S— it may be 
a gloss on •'^sn v.', or a gloss meant to be added to the list of terms in 
v.", q.v. — >'w'D3] (S ajjiapTto:'., understood as a pi. and so the vb. plural- 
ized in agreement with it, but originally prob. a dative = apLapxiqc (s. 
Note at end of chap.); this contradicts the position of scholars who 
hold that (S is witness to y^'s as nominative. — nn^'^i'm n^\•>:;';^] Schultens, 
Animadv., 326, eft. the use of Arah.ja'ala with the impf., 'he was doing 
so-and-so,' and the similar use of na";' in i Ki. 8'-, also below in 11' 
(q.v.): i.e., 'he did prosperously.' 

13. 14. The angelic announcement of the term of the vision. 
13a. And I heard one Holy one speaking, and another [Heb., one] 
Holy one spoke to so-and-so who was speaking. ' Holy one,' tl^HD, 
= angel, s. on tt'''lp 4^°. For the seer's 'hearing in' on an 
angelic conversation as introduction to a revelation cf. Zech. 
ji2 ff.^ 2^; v.^2 of the former passage, ' the angel of the LoiiD spoke 

S''- 14 341 

and said, Lord of hosts, how long?' being model to v.'' here. 
'So-and-so' (the Heb. word here is a hybrid) may be used where 
the name is not known, e.g., i Sa. 21^, Ru. 4^, or, at least in Arabic 
narrative, even where the name is known, but it is tedious or 
unnecessary to repeat it; here the title of the addressee may be 
implied. As has not been observed, the contents of the first 
angel's 'speaking' must be the details of w.^^-i^. The vision 
has passed from the visual to the aural, for the moments of that 
climax could not be seen. 13b. For how long is the vision: the 
Constant, and the desolating Iniquity, the giving of both sanctuary 
and host to trampling? I.e., What is the term of this shocking 

vision? Cf. |'p nyi»^ v.". 'How long,' \'"ia T;_, is an antique 

expression of religion, appearing constantly in the Bab. peniten- 
tials {adi mati) ; for example of the repetitious use of this litur- 
gical formula s. the hymn to Ishtar in King, Seven Tablets of 
Creation, i, 222 _^. = Jastrow, Rel. Bab. u. Ass., 2, 66^.; the 
same exclamative use in the Bible, e.g., Ps. 6'*, 90". It became 
frequent in apocalyptic usage, cf. inf. 12^, 2 Esd. 6^^ etc. (s. Volz, 
Jiid. Esch., 162). The subsequent items are epexegetical to 'the 
vision,' detailing its chief contents. The translation followed 
provisionally above is the one based on the Mass. punctuation, 
which has been in vogue since the early Prot. comm.; it is fol- 
lowed by GV, the Eng. VSS, and almost all scholars who will 
not amend the text. It treats the 'and' in w'lpl as correlative 
to the following 'and,' i.e., 'both . . . and,' a usage only occa- 
sionally found in Heb. (for the cases s. BDB, p. 253a). It is not, 
however, the construction known to the ancient VSS, although 
© ^ B had our text at this point. But we might easily overcome 
the unusual syntax by reading li'lp Inn for ti'lpl rin, 'his 

making sanctuary [and host a trampling].' The problem in v.^^ 
anent S^i' 'host,' which we gave reason for deleting there, 
continues here, and all the attempted translations, 'army,' 'cult,' 
etc., are contrary to the sense of 'host' in v.^^, q.v. The Grr. 
vary from 1^ and have given a starting-point for emendations, 
for which s. Berth., Graetz, Beitrage, 388, Bev., vGall, p. 52, 
Moore, I.e. (JBL 1896, 196). The first two terms inquired of 
are the Constant and the Iniquity. The former is doubtless im- 
proved by following the plus of the Grr., V apOelaa (with Graetz, 
Bev., vGall, Moore) = D"nD, i.e., 'the Constant removed,' cor- 


responding to the l^r., v." (Moore prefers "iplH after 12"). 
In DDtJ' yJSn, 'the desolating Iniquity,' we would have a de- 
scriptive epithet added to 'the Iniquity' of v.^^, understanding 
ytl'S there as subject and omitting the prep. ^ 'in.' The term 
is then equivalent, as Berth., Moore note, to DiStT ppti' of 9^^, 
etc., the disguised term for ' the abomination which he built on 
the place of sacrifice,' i Mac. 6\ And Ra. finds in ' the Iniquity' 
in both vv. the idol that was set up. For 'IT ppt^ s. at 9". 
But as DOti^ is not an item in the preceding w., the present 
writer is inclined to regard it as a gloss from 9". Further, on 
the alleged evidence of (^ Berth., Moore delete bsi^l, thus re- 
moving the trouble caused by this word. (S. at v.^-; again, here 
as there (g read some word = ep-qfiwOrjaerai in its place.) For 
the difficult inf. nn 'giving,' vGall, followed by Mar., proposes 

to read the Nif. \T\l^ i.e., 'the Iniquity was set up.' Moore, 

following Hitz., retains nn, regarding it as postpositive to its 
obj., with the same result as vGall; a parallel for this hard con- 
struction is adduced from Jer. 10" iriH b^ph, as though with 
AV = 'when he utters his voice,' but the natural mng. is given 
by JV, 'at the sound of his giving.' Bev. suggests a considerable 
amendment. The writer would propose that all the terms after 
' (desolating) Iniquity ' are a series of glosses that have accumu- 
lated from terms in vv.^"- "• 1-, terms that provoked inquiry: 

v.i". Jeph. has a similar notion: "How long shall this person 
last who shall do the things mentioned in the v., which are 
three: giving, the sanctuary, the host?" The primarily ab- 
stract t^Tp 'holiness,' is here used of the concrete 'sanctuary'; 

so often of holy things, occasionally of the holy place, e.g., Ps. 
20^, and ' the holy of holies.' For DDIQ (^ tear air drrifxa^ © 
avv7raTr]d^(T€Tat^ cf. the reminiscences in i Mac. 3'*^- ^^, 4^", 
2 Mac. 82, Lu. 212". 

14. And he said unto him [^ unto me]: Unto evenings (and) 
mornings two thousand three hundred; and the sanctuary shall be 
vindicated. All the primary VSS have 'unto him' = T'^^?, 

adopted by Berth, and recent comm., in place of '»7X. The 

problem of the v. lies in the computation of time: Are 2,300 
evening-mornings = 2,300 days meant, or, counting up both 

813. 14 


evenings and mornings, 1,150 days? The former is the view of 
(S If (,§» tr. ^ verbatim), which add ' days ' to the numeral. The 
Jewish comm. follow suit (with various calculations of the 
time), and such is the predominant opinion of the early Prot. 
comm.; AV gives Mays' for 'evenings mornings,' putting the 
latter in the marg.; GV similarly, adding 'vom Abend gegen 
Morgen zu rechnen.' So Berth., Hav., vLeng., Stu., Kail, Behr.; 
the last is the latest defendant of this view among the comm. 
The other view, i.e., 1,150 days, appears first in Aph. Syr., 
Polych., Jeph.; Hipp., iv, 25, agrees with it by rdg. %f'Xtat (so 
also HP 26 35) for ha'x^lXiaL^ i.e., 1,300 days, with identifica- 
tion with the 3^ years. It was taken up by some of the Prot. 
comm., and since Zock. appears to be now the prevailing opinion; 
and so RW JV, 'unto 2,300 evenings and mornings.' The de- 
cision is to be approved for the reason that the consummate 
sacrilege consisted in the suspension of the Constant sacrifices, 
of which there were two a day, hence 2,300 of them = 1,150 
days; as we might say, so many Matins and Vespers. The one 
philological problem lies in the asyndeton, 'evenings mornings' 
(Ci> © B have ' and '), but what is meant is patent from the fuller 
statement in v.^^, 'the vision of the evening and the morning.' 
For these words as technical terms of the two Constants cf. 
TO irpcoivov Kal to SeLXtvov i Esd. 5^^ Behr. notes a parallel 
from the Hildebrandslied, 'sixty summers and winters' = 30 
years. The other view eft. 'it was evening and morning, one 
day,' Gen. i^, and holds that 'evening morning' = vvxOrjixepov 
(so Grot., Berth.), but for such a composition of two nouns no 
exx. are found in the Semitic outside of modern dialects (s. 
Brock., VG i, §248). A period of 1,150 days approximates the 
2)/4 years (1,260-1,278 days) found in our interpretation of 'the 
time, times and half a time' of 7^^; s. Comm. there. The cal- 
culations based on the opinion for 2,300 days, i.e., about 6>^ 
years, begin quite too early, e.g., with Menelaus' usurpation, 
171 B.C., or terminate too late, e.g., with Nicanor's defeat, 162 
B.C.; s. Pole, who presents a wide range of theories, Pusey, Behr., 
Dr. The vb. in 'the sanctuary shall be vindicated' is an inter- 
esting but perfectly proper use of pT^, as Calv. saw: "iustifi- 
care Hebraeis est uerbum iuris"; i.e., it will be restored to its 
rights. Cf. iBiKaioidr] rj ao(^La Mt. ii^^ (gel interpret with 
'shall be purified,' and so AV RVV 'be cleansed,' marg. 'be jus- 


tified/ GV 'wieder geweiht werden'; but JV 'shall be victori- 
ous.' The historical commentary on this vindication is given 
in I Mac. 4^^'^-. 

13. ^"[■/"'^i] The Mass. tradition for -rr is certain; for similar cases 
of apparently arbitrary -fr, explained in part as due to following guttural, 
s. Kon., Lgb., I, p. 74, GK §10, h. N.b. that in the Aram, dialects there 
was the tendency to replace the expected a stem vowel of the impf. 
with u; s. Nold., MG p. 219, SG §170. For the cohortative form with 
ti'aw-consec. s. Dr., Tenses, §§69^.: "It occurs only at rare intervals 
except in two or three of the later writers, some ninety instances of its 
use being cited altogether." — inx . . . nnx] = 'one . . . another' ; 
for similar cases s. BDB s.v. §6. For the prepositive use cf. Nu. 31=* 
(if the text is correct). It is not here the indef. article, which is always 
postpositive (s. at 2^', although cases otherwise in the Mishnah, s. 
Bev., p. 30), but is in apposition with ''^i'^?, 'one, a saint' (so GK 
§125, b). For ^^K (6 uses in both cases e-uepoc; = "inN, which is non- 
sense in the first case. Orig. (6 om. U'np 2°. — 12id] For syntax of the 
ppl. s. at v.^ — T'^;?:] The Heb. expression for this indefinite pro- 
noun is always '^^i^ '^""P. Ew., Lehrb., §106, c, Brock., VG i, 295, 
regard the form as contraction of the usual double term; Behr. as 
erroneous scribal combination of the two; Perles, Atialekten, 82, as com- 
bination of two rdgs. Probably the ultimately alone current ^j'^d was 
original, and a was inserted artificially to identify with the classical 
term. The text is ancient, the word being transliterated in C6 © 
(p:X;i.ouvi; Sym. alone Ttv; xots (so & B Theodt.). Aq. gives the earliest 
treatment of the word as a proper, angelic name; ace. to Ber. R., 21, he 
translated it 'to him who is inside,' identifying with ^s-'JD, meaning 
Adam, whose seat is in front of the ministering angels; s. Field, ad loc, 
Jastrow, s.v. Similarly Polych. regards it as name of an angel, and so 
Jeph., who finds three angels, Palmoni, Gabriel and an anonymous. 
N.b. the article in M supported prob. by the Grr. With the derivation 
of ^jSd from r^^o (s. BDB) = n'^2 'be wonderful' (?), cj. Arab, lahs, 
'individual, person,' primarily a 'phenomenon.'— P'^lv'] There is no 
reason with Ew., Lehrb., §290, e, to regard this as an irregular case of 
the construct, or with Pr. to read a const. On the VSS at v."'' s. Note 
at end of the chap. — 14. -\p2\ Without depending on the evidence of 
(S 13, which prefix conj., we may note that an orig. 1 may easily have 
fallen out before the following labial. There may be noticed Knab.'s 
ingenious theory that the text once read -ipa d^d-', but minus 3V. "ip^ 
being a numeral, i.e., 2,000 -|- 100 -f 200 = 2,300; subsequently the 
numeral was written out, "^pa was taken for the noun, 2-\y attached, 
and so d^-'' finally dropped. But alphabetic figures for numerals are 

8"-^^ 345 

not found in the ancient texts; cj. at 2', 6'. — pixj] The Nif. only here. 
For xaOapiaOTjasTat, h-", Clem. Al. have the error apOifjasirat. 

15-27. The interpretation of the vision. 15-18. The inter- 
lude of the summons to Gabriel to instruct Daniel. 15. And it 
came to pass when I Daniel saw the vision, that I sought to under- 
stand it. And behold there stood before me as the appearance of 
a man. 16. And I heard a human voice amidst the Ulai, which 
called and said: Gabriel, make yon one to understand the vision. 
VI. And he came near where I stood. And when he came, I was 
panic-stricken, and fell upon my face. But he said unto me: Un- 
derstand, son of man ; for the vision has to do with the time of the 
end. 18. And as he was speaking with me I swooned with my 
face to the ground ; and he touched me and made me stand upright. 
The introduction to the interpretation is similar to that in c. 7, 
vv.i^ f-. Here the angels intervene of their own accord. For the 
phrase 'as the appearance of a man ("li!l, uir),^ or 'the like of 
a man,' cf. similar although not identical phrases, lo^®- ^*, and 
s. Note at end of chap. 7. 

16. For the opening sentence cf. Eze. i^*^; 'a human voice,' 
i.e., mS homo, used in its usual generic sense. The phrase 
* amidst the Ulai ' is interpreted by the E W ' between the banks 
of Ulai'; but the prep. \^'2 is sometimes used as here translated. 
For the scene cf. the angels by the river, 12^^-. With Gabriel, 
here and 9^^, we have the first attribution of a personal name to 
angels; the one other angel named in the Jewish Scriptures is 
Michael, 10" '^^ {q.v.). And these two alone appear in the N.T., 
Gabriel being there the annunciator as here, Lu. i^^- ^^ In Tob. 
2)^\ etc., Raphael is named. In En. the angelic nomenclature is 
luxuriant; the four or seven archangels there include Michael 
and Gabriel (9^, 20). See, inter al., for the Judaistic period 
Bousset, Rel. d. Jud., c. 16; for the Talmud, etc., Weber, Jild. 
Theologie, §34; and for later Judaism the great compendium by 
M. Schwab, Dictionnaire de Vangelologie, 1897. Michael and 
Gabriel retain their pre-eminence in the Talmud. As the writer 
has observed in his Aram. Incant. Texts, 96, Gabriel is often 
given precedence over Michael in magical formulas, especially 
in non- Jewish circles, Michael being the patron of Israel. It 
became early the vogue to compose angelic names upon the 
element -el, 'God,' but these were of the type used originally 


for humans, s. Note. The pronoun translated 'yon one,' rare 
in Heb., is reminiscent of Zech. 2^. 

17. 'I was panic-stricken': this tr. of the vb- f\]^'2 is approved 
by comparing the cognate m^X Tl^yS 'terrors of God,' 

Job 6*. The title 'son of man,' i.e., 'human,' is borrowed from 
Eze., where it occurs about a hundred times, 2^, etc. 'Falling 
on the face,' the common attitude of reverence, is a frequent 
phrase in Eze., e.g., i^*; cf. Rev. i^^, 22^ The causal connection 
of 'for the vision,' etc., would be that the vision is 'worthy of 
special attention' (Bev.). But the tr. 'that (''3) the vision' is 
also possible. The Heb. reads literally ' the vision (is) for time 
of end,' as we might say 'End-time.' I.e., a fixed term is given 
for the consummation of the 'age,' which has been counted in 
days, vv.i^- ". The expression recurs in v.", ii^^- ^°, 12*- ^; and 
with a change in one word, 'end-term,' inf. v.^^, it is reminiscent 
of Hab. 2^, 'For the vision is yet for the term (ij^ll^^), and 
it ...(?) to the end and lies not.' What the 'end' is appears 
from 9^^, 'his end,' i.e., Antiochus'. For the apocalyptic use of 
'end' cf. Am. 8^, Eze. 36, f, it'"'- 29, 355. It is the D^DNI nnns' 
of the prophetic books, commonly translated ' the latter days ' ; 
s. Comm. at 2"^. The phrase rings through all subsequent apoc- 
alyptic literature; s. Volz, p. 189 (with numerous citations), 
Bousset, pp. 278^. It appears usually in the reverse construc- 
tion, finis saeculi, saeculorum, and so here the text of 0, et? 
Kaipov irepa^. But the later nuance of the end of time and the 
ushering in of eternity {cf. Bousset, p. 280) is not to be found 
here, against Cha. 18. The tr. 'I swooned,' TiJ^TIi, is more 
appropriate for an abnormal unconsciousness than that of EVV, 
'I was, or fell into, a deep sleep,' which is correct in, e.g., Jon. 
i^, Gen. 2^1 (nDT"iri). The same kind of scene, with the mo- 
ment of the divine touch, is repeated in lo^f-, cf. vv."*^-; also 
En. 60^ f-. Rev. i", 2 Esd. 5"^-. The sentence 'he made me stand 
upright,' lit. 'on my standing,' follows Eze. 2^, ' (the) spirit made 
me stand up on my feet.' The parallelism may explain the 
Koranic identification of Jibril with the Holy Spirit. 

15. inxna in>i] See at v.^. It is not evident why JV throws the vb. 
into the pluperf., 'had seen.' — '?}<''Ji '■jn] Emphasis on the name to 
express return of self-consciousness, as in 7". (§ simplifies by making 
the phrase subj. of the following vb. — njo] 'Understanding' with ref. 

819-26 347 

to the object, as 9-, 10'; of the subjective faculty, 1-°. — 13 J hnidj] Cf. 
D1K 'CD lo'^ 01S >i2 nir:i3 Io'^ and t'jN -133 7". — 16. pDCNi] But 
rri-psNi sup., nyccsi v.". — '•Six }i3] For p3 'amidst' cf. T'Xn p33 
(P33?) 'amidst the grass,' Is. 44^; and so in expressions of time, 
D''D'' mtry p3 Neh. 5'^ o^siiin p3 'at the evening,' Ex. i6'^ etc. 
(a"'3ij? not a dual, s. GK §88, c, GB); cf. Arab, baind, bainamd, 'while.' 
— '?x->-i3j] For similar human name cf. El-gabri, BE 10, 52, Ilu-gabri, 
Tallqvist, Neubabylon. Natnenbuch, 76. Similarly Michael, Uriel were 
at first human names. — ^)^] For the other few cases, and for '^J.?^ 
found only in Pent., s. GK §32, f. — In v.'^'' (B has a doublet: x. sx-dleas 
. . . opajiv is interpolated from 0; the second clause, x. avaporjaat; 
elicev 6 d'vOpWTTo; sicl xb xpoffTaytxa exsivo fj opixaiq, is the result of a 
queer but intelligible misreading of % i.e., nfsnnn nNt*? nSjan hn -i3J. 
On this it is to be remarked that n'?j3n was understood as nSjnn with 
dissimilation from ^^^^ (= xpoorotyixa 3", 6"^); cf. Mand. nhS-'JD < 
nSjn (s. Nold., MG p. 54), and cf npSon > npon > npojn 6=^.— 17. 
''"'•??] "'v^ or inf. const. "''^H, only in Dan., Ch., Neh., semantically = 
0''P? Below and c. 11 ic>' is used for Dip. — pn] Both Hif. and Kal are 
used indifferently, = 'understand.' For p pn B F (HP defective here) 
ignore p, having ouvaq alone; al. + uis = SjWzbj g P represent an 
early omission, which was later supplied. — I'l"?, ">.] exhibits dq xatpoij 
xipa?, but ffiwzb ifi tempiis finis correctly, i.e., elq xatpbv %. {cf. 230 
xatpwv = xaipov?), and this may have been the orig. rdg. of 0, mth 
■jiipa^ understood as indeclinable or adverbial. (S £t<; wpav xatpoO, i.e., 
giving TP in sense of 'time,' the mng. it probably has in Zad. Frag., i, 5; 
2, 9. 10. — 18. inmn:] The ppl. oii: 10^; OrC plus to sOa[i.pT)OT5v 
[xat xtxTw]. — nny Sy] (B al.) exl xooa;, Or^ (A Q 106 al.) Lu. + 
tiou, cf. ^^^^ supra pedes rneos. The phrase is late, else only 10", Ch., 
Neh., = earlier 'Onn or "h^^- ^'L 

19-26. The angelic interpretation of the vision. 19. And he 
said : Behold, I will make thee know what shall he in the end of the 
Wrath ; for for the term of the end ' / The angel repeats his pre- 
vious announcement, but with greater fulness. The present 
phrase is enlarged upon in 11^'', 'till the Wrath (without the 
article) be accomplished, for that which is determined shall be 
done.' The phrases go back to the prophetic books: Is. lo^^ 
'and (the) Wrath shall be accomplished,' 262", 'until (the) Wrath 
pass by.' The 'Wrath' is the temper of God at the present 
epoch, due primarily to Israel's sin, which however is to vent 
itself upon Israel's enemies, who have taken advantage of her 
bitter discipline. As Mar. remarks, the whole history of Israel 


since the Exile lies under the Wrath of God, to be terminated 
by the inauguration of the Kingdom. This interpretation ap- 
pears in the comment of i Mac. on the persecutions of Antiochus, 
I ^^, ' there came great Wrath upon Israel ' (with actual citation 
of I Ki. 3^^, a passage of quite different circumstances, but rep- 
resenting the antiquity of the idea). A commentary on the 
Wrath is given in Dan.'s confession in c. 9. For discussions of 
this grievous problem of Jewry s. Schultz, Alttest. Religions gesch., 
§54; Wicks, The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocryphal and 
Apocalyptic Literature, c. 2; Weber, Jiid. Theologie, §58. The 
fmal clause of the v. repeats the end of v.^'^ with an unessential 
change in one word and omitting the subject 'the vision.' The 
latter word is expressed in most mss (not in (^), and is re- 
stored here by Behr., Mar.; but unnecessarily, for the signifi- 
cant words are repeated exclamatively as a clew. 

20. The ram which thou sawest, he of the two horns — the kings 
of Media and Persia; 21. and the buck, the he- goat — the king of 
Greece; and the great horn which is between his eyes — the first king; 
22. and the broken one and there stood up four in its place — four 
kingdoms shall stand up out of his nation [|^ a nation], but not 
with his power. The items of the vision and their interpreta- 
tions are given in staccato fashion. It is almost the only case 
in the book where political allusions are definitely unveiled. 21. 
In v.i^ the two horns stand for the two states of Media and 
Persia, and 'kings' is used for 'kingdoms,' as in 7^^, q.v.; simi- 
larly here 'king' is used both of the kingdom of Greece and of 
King Alexander. The double phrase translated above ' the buck, 
the he-goat' differs from the corresponding one, w.^- ^, 'buck 
of the goats.' The second term here, I'^J^ty, is generally trans- 
lated as adj., EW 'rough,' more correctly 'shaggy.' But the 
word is most often used as a noun, of the he-goat, the usual 
word in this connection, whereas above an Aramaic word, 
"l^S!i 'buck,' was used. Hence comm., e.g., Behr., Dr., have 

suggested that the classical Heb. word has been here added by 
way of explanation (Behr., as a gloss). The Grr. read here as 
above, 'buck of the goats,' but their evidence is not to be taken 
for the orig. rdg., for the word 1''J?'i* is also used of the wood 

demon, the 'satyr' of AV, and the Gr. translators would nat- 
urally have avoided such a slur on Greece, even as the trans- 



lators of the Pent, avoided Xaya)<i for the unclean hare out of 
respect to the Lagidae. 22. By the addition of one character 
to the Heb., we obtain the necessary 'his nation,' with the Grr., 
H. For the asserted diminution of the power of the Diadochi 
from that of Alexander cf. ii'*. 

23. And at the end of their sovereignty [Heb. kingdom], as it 
were [Heb. like] the completing of sins [M sinners], there shall 
stand up a king bold-faced and skilled in enig^nas. 24. And his 
power shall wax mighty [gloss, hut not hy his power]; and he shall 
destroy terribly, and shall prosper and do; and he shall destroy 
mighty ones and the people of the Saints. The climax of the em- 
pire of Greece appears in Antiochus (ace. to Oriental notion the 
Seleucidae were Alexander's legitimate successors, s. Torrey's 
paper on 'Yawan,' JAOS 25, 302); as in c. 7 all the history of 
the Successors is focussed in this Atheist who holds the centre 
of the stage for the pious Jews. The prep, introducing the fol- 
lowing gerundive clause may be translated as above, 'as it 
were,' and so more forcibly, or it may be simply temporal, of 
time at which, as it is generally understood. This clause in m 
refers to 'the sinners completing (the measure),' i.e., of their 
sins; and so almost all comm., e.g., JV, 'when the sinners have 
completed their transgressions.' But all the VSS understood, 
with a different vocalization (D''yii*3 for D'^JJirs), 'the sins,' 

which agrees with 'finishing (so ^^r.) transgression,' 9^*, and this 
amendment is accepted by Berth., Ew., Mein. The phrase is 
then parallel to Gen. 15^^, 'for not yet is complete (Q^:y) the 

•■ T 

iniquity of the Amorite,' a theme which recurs in the Scriptures: 
2 Mac. 6", 7r/>09 eKirXripoiaLv afiapriMv {vv.^-^- an interesting 
commentary on Israel's discipline) ; iTh. 2^^,€i9 to avairXripoiaai 
ra<i dfMapTLa^ avrwv Trdprore^ with evident reminiscence of this 
passage, for there follows, 'and the Wrath has come upon them 
utterly.' These refif., adduced by Geier, CBMich., Bert., but 
ignored by recent comm., give the preference, by 'analogy of 
Scripture,' to the rdg. 'sins.' The 'sins' are the causes and the 
object of the 'Wrath,' v.'^; with Antiochus their measure is 
brought to the full that the Theodicy may be inaugurated. The 
description of the 'king,' Antiochus, is a striking miniature in 
words. He is 'bold-faced,' as close as possible a translation of 
the Heb., in which the same phrase is used of the harlot's 


effrontery (Pr. 7"); it involves insolence (Bev.), defiancy (Dr.), 
but we may hold to the concrete, physical expression dear to 
the Semitic genius. The word rendered 'enigmas' is the 'rid- 
dles' of 5 '2; the multifariousness of word-meaning in the elder 
Sem. lexicon is illustrated in the use of the word {cf. the Lord's 
saying, ravra ev 7rapoifiiaL<; XeXdXrjKa v/ilv Jn. 16^''). Ant. 
was a master in Machiavellian arts, master-diplomatist, able to 
deceive 'the very elect.' Cf. the characteristic of 'deceit' in 
v.^^, which is illustrated from i Mac. i^°, 'he spoke to them words 
of peace in deceit.' Ant.'s character is further depicted at 1 1^^ ^■. 
The clause bracketed above, ' but not by his (E VV plus ' own ') 
power,' repeats the last clause of v.^^, and by reason of its change 
of reference has given trouble to the exegetes. Calv., Ew. are 
logical in making the words refer again to the same antecedent, 
Alexander; but the antecedent is too distant. Hence a variety 
of attempts at explanation: Theodt., Aph. Syr., Ra., AEz., 
Vatablus, by divine permission; or by other human auxiliaries 
(Bert.), Polanus precising by naming Eumenes and Attains or 
the perfidy of the Jewish renegades. Or the contrast is found 
between strength and deceit (cf. v.^^), so vLeng. and recent 
comm., Mein., Bev., Behr., Kamp., Dr., Cha.; but we should 
expect 'by power,' not 'by his power,' as Behr. himself seems 
to feel. But © om. the clause (it may not be original in (^, s. 
Note), and so Mar., Lohr, Ehr., cf. Cha. The adv. used in 'he 
shall destroy terribly' corresponds to the Gr. Seivw^ which so 
often is used like the 'awfully' of Eng. vernacular; indeed, the 
word may be imitated from the Gr. To the persecuted Jews 
Ant.'s ' destructiveness ' (the vb. is used thrice in this and the 
following v.) loomed large; the Heb. vb. is commonly used in a 
moral sense, and its object would include social institutions as 
well as concrete things. The 'mighty ones' are Ant.'s political 
foes ((S well 'dynasts'), who are represented through a narrow- 
ing of focus by the four 'kings' he displaced; these are in con- 
trast with 'the people of the Saints' (the latter word without 
the article, and so practically a proper name), i.e., 'the Saints 
of the Most High,' 7^^ Some comm., e.g., AEz. (not Ra.), Stu., 
Pr., identify 'mighty ones' with Israel and regard 'the people 
of the Saints' as epexegetical; but the Maccabees had not yet 
proved their valor. 

25. And after his cunning he shall cause craft to prosper in his 

810-26 351 

hand, and in his mind [Heb. heart] he shall act greatly, and un- 
awares he shall destroy many. And against the Prince of princes 
shall he take stand. And without hand [i.e., natural agency] shall 
he be broken. As Mar. observes for vv.^^- ^^ the conclusion of the 
angelic address breaks into metrical form, but it is rather a 
kind of saj' than a regulated metre. The syntax of the Heb. in 
the first sentence is somewhat harsh, although quite possible, 
and it has been adhered to above. But it has troubled the Grr., 
being snarled up in one of its rare absurdities. (^ supplies after 
the first prep. ^J?, 'the Saints,' obtaining the plausible tr., 'and 

against the Saints his purpose.' This clev/ has been seized upon 
by Graetz, p. 390, followed by Bev., Mar., Blud. (p. 67), Jahn, 
Lohr, Ehr., Cha. for an emendation: omitting 'and the people 
of the Saints,' end of v.^'* (which (^ has !), and then following 
d, 'and against the Saints shall be his mind [and he shall cause].' 
Bev. eft. ii^*, 'his heart against the holy covenant.' But Behr., 
Kamp., Pr., Dr. rightly stickle at the correction; Behr. regards 
it as 'flat,' and observes against Bev.'s view that there can be 
no mention of the saints until v.", that the writer does not avoid 
repetitions; and Dr. makes the capital point that h'2^ does not 

mean 'mind' as those critics take it after (^ Siavorj/jba-^ s. Note 
further. ' In his hand ' means ' in operation ' ; for this use of T» 


s. BDB 390a. There is a contrast, perhaps satirical, between it 
and the following 'in his mind' ('heart' as seat of the mind). 
For 'act greatly,' 'do big things,' s. Comm. at v.*. 'Unawares' 
is a tr., now generally adopted after Aram, usage, in place of 
RVV JV 'in (time of) security,' which amounts to the same 
meaning (AV 'by peace'). It is generally recognized that here 
we have a direct historical ref., which can be of use in dating 
the chap., viz., i Mac. i^^^-; this tells how Ant.'s tax-gatherer 
(Apollonius) came to Jerusalem 'and spoke to them words of 
peace in guile, and they believed him, and he fell upon the city 
suddenly (i^aTriva)^ and he smote it greatly and destroyed much 
people of Israel' (cf. below 'deceit' and 'shall destroy many'). 
The 'Prince of princes' is 'the Prince of the host,' v.^^, q.v., i.e., 
God. In 'he shall be broken without hand,' the vb. is not used 
concretely as in v.^ of the great horn, but in the secondary 
sense of destruction, e.g., Jer. 22^", 'all thy lovers are destroyed.' 
In ' without hand ' the noun is used in one of its many connota- 


tions (c/. mamis in Latin), here as the instrument of force, and 
so force; we may compare Zech. 4^: 'not by power and not by 
force but by my spirit, saith the Lord.' Not a human or natural 
agency but the direct visitation of God will destroy the tyrant. 
We recall the vivid Jewish stories of his miserable death in 
Persia from some disease accompanied by melancholy: i Mac. 6, 
2 Mac. 9, Jos., AJ xii, 9, i. However, the vague statement here 
must not be taken as post eventum or treated too exactly as pro- 
phetic. For another similarly vague predictive allusion to Ant.'s 
death, but one which cannot be post eventum, s. 11^^. 

26. The asseveration of the truth of the vision. Atid the 
vision of 'the evenings and mornings' which has been told is true. 
A nd thou, close up the vision, for many days yet ! ' Evenings and 
mornings' is a clew from \}^, taken as a summary title of the 
vision. For this solemn affirmation, "intended here as an en- 
couragement to the persecuted Israelites, who may rest assured 
that their sufferings will ere long reach the appointed limit" 
(Dr.), cf. 10', II- (in both which cases as here the noun 'truth' 
is used). Rev. 19^, 21^, 22^ It is implied that the vision is to 
be written, cf. 7^, and then the book is to be 'closed up' (simi- 
larly 12^ 'closed up and sealed'), because while written in the 
reign of Belshazzar it relates to the distant age of Antiochus; 
it is to remain hidden because it would not be intelligible before 
that epoch, while this charge would explain why none ever heard 
of the vision until that late day {cf. Dr., Cha.). Cf. En. i- 
(visions seen not for this generation but for a remote one), 
104^- f-, 2 Esd. 14^^ ff- (distinguishing between the public Scrip- 
tures, and the 'apocrypha' which are to be committed to the 
wise). For the final apocopated clause cf. v.^^ It is a citation 
of Eze. 12^^ (there a satirical gibe of the people at the prophet's 
predictions); cf. also below 10". 

19. Ehr. offers the insipid correction of D^'rn to D''Din. — $ has the 
correct exegetical plus [i-qq opyrji;] lolc, ulol^ toj XaoO aou, which is 
adopted by Lu. — ^>■1!:] = n;? v."; for the equivalence cf. the synonym- 
ity of iDi and p;", s. at 2-'. — At end of the v. most mss -|- t) opaatc; = 
SJWzb^ but Q in Lu. MSS omit it, prob. after the earlier rdg. of ©. (S 
did not read it, but has a doublet, sU wpa; (1. wpav) xatpoG (= v.*") 
auvTEXsiaq (= "i"'.) pLsvs; (^;;1DS as from rt. nD>' often = jjiivciv). — 
20. "'sVd] All VSS as though iSd, induced by the apparent difficulty 
of the syntax. — Dial nc] A B 26 35 106 130 233 'Persians and Medes' 

8^^-^^ 353 

= ffiwzb; the same in texts 6'.— 21. "''3'.^'] = 'hairy,' then 'he-goat,' 
and so the satyr-demon (why BDB, GB distinguish the two nouns is 
not evident). All VSS tr. as though °']".^—22. >3-i« njnDyni nnp.rjni 
ninnr] The whole clause in casus pendens with the waw consec. fol- 
lowing the ppl., cf. ■i>J ><?i n^i nar b-^x Ss 3 Sa. 14'", etc., s. GK, §116, 
w. The difficult clause is variously rendered by the VSS but without 
impeachment of 1^. (6 xal xd: auvTpt^evua = n^^B'jni, and the plus 
[reaaapa] xspaxa; x. toG auvTpcpsvxo; (gen. abs.) ou eaxTjaav 
xsajapa uxoxiTw xepaxa; the strange position of -/.igara can only be ex- 
plained as a gloss from (S, it is not found in iCw2b_ q^c revised the 
order here, Lu. rendered more elegantly. 31 e/ conlriti (— 0gen. abs.) 
cornu (an exegetical gloss) in quo stelerunt quattuor reges ('four' 2° lost 
by haplog.) sunt (?) de gente eiiis exsiirgent. — '^'"?..'?] This pi. for a 
noun in abstract -ut is unique in classical Heb., to be expected '^^9;^; 
s. GK §95, u. But it is the regular pi. in NHeb., s. K. Albrecht, Neuheh. 
Gramm. aiif Grand der Mishna, §84, h. All VSS read 'kings.' It is 
possible that a double rdg. is implied here, to be read either lOi^sSc or 
niaSn. — ''"'J?] All VSS exc. & read as '''J°, now generally accepted. — 
i^^lD^] The form is explained by Mein., Bev., GK §47, k, after elder 
grammarians, as either Aramaizing or survival of an antique Sem. form 
(with y prefix to the fem. as in other Sem. groups); similar cases in 
Gen. 30^', I Sa. 6'-. This view is rejected by Kon., Lgb., i, pp. 239. 417, 
Behr., Kamp., Mar., Lohr, who read the regular njisyn. The Jewish 
grammarians recognized these forms as 'androgynous' (s. Kon.), and 
Kon. thinks there was intended the double ref. to 'kingdoms' and 
'kings'; as such, like nvjSs above, it would be an early Rabbinic con- 
ceit. — ^"^^^ ^■)\ There is no reason (Kamp.) to strike these words out 
with Behr. as a gloss from v.-^ (the converse argument is made by some) ; 
Behr. arbitrarily holds they