Skip to main content

Full text of "Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin, an historical study of the fifth chapter of Daniel"

See other formats 


Mene  Mene  Tekel  Upharsin 
John  Dyneley  Prince 


«* 

f . 

1ENE  IENE  TEKEL  UPHARSffl 


AN  HISTORICAL  STUDY 


OF -THE 


FIFTH  CHAPTER  OF  DANIEL 

in 


DISSERTATION 


Presented  to  the  Board  of  University  Studies  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University 
for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of.  Philosophy 


BY 

JOHN  DTNELEY  PRINCE 


BALTIMORE,    1893 


MKNK  .MENE  TEKEL  ( TIIARSIN 


AN  HISTORICAL  STUDY 


OF  THE 


FIFTH   CHAPTER  OF  DANIEL 


DISSERTATION 

to   ilu-    l>o;inl  of    t*ni  v<Tsit  y   Studies  of    (In-  Johns   Hopkins 
Uiiiv(.-rsitv  lor  tin-   I  )(•:;•!•(•.•  ,,i    Doctor  of 


.KHIN     DVNKLKV     1'KINCK 


BALTIMORE 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  following  dissertation  is  an  attempt  to  bring  forward  and  empha- 
size whatever  germs  of  historical  truth  there  may  lurk  in  the  fifth 
chapter  of  the  much  disputed  Book  of  Daniel.  The  keen  knife  of 
modern  criticism,  in  the  demonstration  of  the  untenable  character 
of  the  old  orthodox  position  regarding  the  book,  has  so  dissected  and 
torn  the  work  asunder,  that  whatever  of  truth  there  might  be  in  it  is 
now  liable  to  be  overlooked  in  tin-  search  for  and  exposition  of  the 
many  unquestionable  historical  errors. 

It  seems  therefore  that  the  time  has  come,  without  denying  the  un- 
doubted late  origin  of  the  Hook  of  Daniel,  to  lay  stress  on  the  few 
grains  of  true  history  which  the  Maccabawu  author  has  succeeded  in 
gathering  from  the  rrring  traditions  of  his  time. 

The  writer  of  this  dissertation,  accordingly,  offers  a  suggestion 
towards  the  elucidation  of  the  mysterious  sentence  Ch.  v.  25.  and  has 
endeavoured  to  show  that  it  is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  consider  t  his 
part  of  Daniel  a  pure  invention  of  the  author,  but  that  it  is  possible  to 
detect  even  here  an  echo  of  real  history.  Abstracts  of  this  dissertation 
have  been  published  in  the  .fnhnx  //M/*/,1/'//*  (Tn/r.  <  'in-Hltirx.  No.  !»s.  /,. 
94  ;  and  in  the  Proceed iny*  offltr  Anu-i-inm  Oriental  ,SW/V///,  April,  1892, 
pp.  clxxxii-clxxxix. 

The  writer  takes  this  opportunity  to  express  his  gratitude  to  Professor 
Paul  Haupt  for  many  kindnesses  and  especially  for  the  constant  guid- 
ance and  personal  attention  which  have  been  given  him  in  his  work 
at  the  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

BALTIMOKK,  February. 


OF   TI'TTI.K,    MOIM.IIOI'Si:    \    TAV1.OH, 
N  i:\\      II  A  \  KN,    CONN. 


CHAPTER   FIRST 

THE   MYSTEEIOUS   WRITING. 

Every  reader  of  the  Bible  is  familiar  with  the  story  of  the 
feast  of  Belshazzar  and  the  mysterious  writing  which  appeared 
as  a  warning  to  the  last  king  of  Babylon.  The  enigmatical 
sentence  has  always  been  considered  one  of  the  most  obscure 
of  the  many  difficult  scriptural  passages  which  have  awakened 
the  interest  and  baffled  the  ingenuity  of  scholars.  Indeed,  up 
to  the  present  decade  no  really  satisfactory  explanation  of  the 
phrase  has  been  attained.  Even  if  it  be  admitted  that  the 
events  described  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Daniel  actually  oc- 
curred, there  are  still  two  difficulties  presented  by  the  Biblical 
record;  first,  the  true  meaning  of  the  sentence,  and  second, 
the  reason  why  the  writing  was  unintelligible  to  the  hierogram- 
rnatists. 

The  ancient  writers  evidently  regarded  the  three  words  Mene, 
Tekcl  and  /Y/v.v'  of  ver>es  *K\.  "21  and  28  as  substantives. 
Josephus  (A?ttt.,  x.  11,  '>\)  <•.  y.,  translates  them  by  a/otfl/zo?, 
crrafl/xo?,  tfXaoT-ta,  and  .Jerome  by  'numeriis,  appensio,  divisio." 

Among  the  more  modern  scholars  the  opinion  has  been 
advanced  that  frOE  and  ^pjl  are  preterites  of  the  verbs 
'to  count'  and  ^pH  'to  weigh,'  respectively,  and  that  p 
the  last  word  of  the  phrase,  is  a  plural  participle  of  D*)B  'to 
divide.'  The  translation  for  verse  25  was  accordingly  sug- 
gested, '  numeravit,  numeravit,  appendit  et  dividunt.'2 

J.  D.  Michaelis,  c  Daniel '  p.  51,  suggested  reading  K3D  KJJD 
"  Der  Ziihlende  (God)  hat  gezjihlt,"  while  Dereser  and 
Bertholdt,  ('  Daniel'^.  389)  following  Theodotion  and  the  Vul- 
gate rejected  one  fcOp  as  an  error  of  the  copyist,  who,  accord- 
ing to  their  idea,  may  have  written  the  word  twice.  Bertholdt 

1  Both  the  Greek  and  Latin  translations  have  only  the  three  words 
'  Mane,  Thekel,  Phares'  in  verse  25.  See  below,  Appendix  II,  note  1,  to 
verse  25. 

2 See  Buxtorf,  'Lexicon  Chaldaicum  Talmudicum  et  Rabbinicum,' 
col.  2623. 


6 

regarded  the  three  words  as  participles,  translating  "  Geziihlt 
ist  es,  gewogen  ist  es,  getheilt  ist  es."  This  opinion  which 
was  followed  with  certain  modifications  by  almost  all  the 
subsequent  critics3  was  never  a  satisfactory  explanation,  because, 
while  it  may  be  possible  to  regard  NJD  as  a  passive  participle, 
the  form  of  the  other  words  TpH  and  D*)£3  has  always  pre- 
sented a  difficulty. 

The  remark  of  Abr.  Geiger  in  an  explanation  of  a  Mishnic 
passage  in  the  Ztschr.  der  deutschen  mor  genii  uulixcl  ten  Gesell- 
sckaft,  xxi.  (1867)  p.  46T/.  that  the  Tosephta  regarded  D15  in 
the  phrase  D^DI  f"OD  POO  ,  as  '  a  half-mina,'  should  have  given 
a  clue  to  the  true  meaning  of  the  mysterious  sentence.  No 
one  however  seems  to  have  had  a  similar  idea  until  of  late 
years,  when  an  entirely  new  light  was  thrown  on  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  passage  by  the  distinguished  French  archaeologist 
M.  Clermont-Ganneau,  who,  in  1886,  published  in  the  Jour- 
nal Asiatique  (Serie  viii.  vol.  I.  pp.  36^.)  an  article  entitled 
4  Mane,  Thecel,  Phares  et  le  festin  de  Balthasar,'  which  appeared 
in  an  English  translation  in  Hebra/ica,  iii.  pp.  87-102.  Gan- 
neau  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  interpretation  attributed 
to  Daniel  does  not  agree  rigorously  with  the  prophet's  deci- 
pherment of  the  inscription,  i.  e.,  that  the  interpretation  given 
by  the  author  in  vv.  26,  27,  28,  is  based  only  on  the  three 
words  Mene,  Tekel  and  2*eres9  the  plural  form  of  the  latter 
,  which  appears  in  v.  25  preceded  by  the  conjunc- 


3  Compare  among  others,  Havernick,  'Daniel,'  1832,  p.  195,  who 
explained  the  form  /pH  as  being  caused  by  analogy  with  N^lp  ; 
Lengerke,  *  Daniel,'  1835,  pp.  261,  262,  who  explains  the  three  words 
as  participles  analogous  in  form  to  the  fictitious  form  *"ltN  ("1*?N) 
in  chap.  ii.  5,  8  :  and  Hitzig,  '  Daniel,'  1850,  p.  84,  who  regarded 
7pfl  as  a  middle  pronunciation  between  /^pfi  and  /pfi  (from 

7/p)  containing  the  double  meaning  '  thou  art  weighed'  and  'found 
too  light,'  a  rather  fanciful  supposition  which  was  objected  to  l>y 
Kranichfeld,  'Daniel,'  1868,  p.  226.  The  latter  considered  ^pJl  not 
as  a  pure  passive  participle,  but  as  a  sort  of  passive  preterite  which 
passed  to  an  intransitive.  7*pJl  becoming  ^pH  by  assonance  with 
&OO  •  (C/.  also  Keil,  'Daniel.'  />.  l,r»s,  who  translated  ver>. 
"  (irxahlt,  gc/.aldt.  gi'xvo^-n  und  in  St  iiclce.") 


til  MI  ")  being  disregarded.  This  difference  between  the  text  as 
read  and  the  explanation,  he  thought  could  only  be  explaine4 
by  the'  suj)[)osition  that  the  Biblical  author  had  to  do  with  a 
set  traditional  phrase,  from  which  it  was  necessary  to  bring 
out  a  certain  interpretation  adapted  t<>  the  circumstances  of  the 
case. 

Ganneau  then  proceeds  to  explain  his  important  discovery 
which  gives  a  new  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  mysterious  words. 
During  an  epigraphic  mission  to  the  British  Museum  in  1S7\ 
he  found  that  the  three  letters  on  certain  half  mina-weights, 
which  had  previously  been  read  uHp  were  in  reality  J2H£3  = 
j>tff,/H=  half.  As  tlu1  weight  hearing  the  inscription  was  iMjual 
to  that  of  half  of  a  light  mina,  he  concluded  that  fc£H£3  must 
mean  '  half -mina.'  This  discovery  led  him  to  decide  that  on 
the-  set  of  Xinevitic  weigliN,  engraved  with  letters  approaching 
in  form  to  the  Arannean  character.^,  the  three  words,  POD  = 
•mina,'  ^pfi  =  'shekel'  and  t!'"l£3  =  *  half  mina/  were  to  be 
found,  and  that  these  three  names  might  correspond  to  the 
three  chief  words  of  the  sentence  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Daniel. 
Concluding  then  that  the  mysterious  sentence  may  contain 
nanie.s  of  weights,  he  proceeds  to  apply  this  theory  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  phrase,  suggesting  a  number  of  conjectural 
translations  for  the  entire  sentence,  no  <>ne  of  which  throws 
any  >atisfactory  light  on  the  meaning.  Reading  f'D*)?  as  a 
dual  form  (pp")3X  he  proposes,  e.  </.,  to  transfer  the  1  from 
j'DIGI  to  ^pfl,  reading  V?pfl ,  imperative  of  ^pfl  k  to  weigh/ 
and  to  tran>late  'for  every  mina  wei^h  two  paras'  or  ka  mina 
i>  a  mina,  weigh  two  para>':  <>r.  regarding  the  verb  as  a 
pn-terite,  'they  have  weighed  two  paras,' etc.,  (see  /A ///v/,Vv/, 
iii.  .\<>.  •_?,  i*i>.  1>0  ff.}  The  general  conclusion  at  which  he 
arrived  was  that  w  the  two  extreme  and  essential  terms  of  the 
phrase  in  Daniel  are  two  names  of  weights,  of  which  one  is 
double  the  other,  placed  in  relation  by  a  third  middle  term, 
which  is  either  a  third  name  of  weight  (that  of  shekel)  or  the 
verb  'to  weigh/  from  which  the  name  of  shekel  is  derived. 

This  attempt  of  (lanneau  was  followed  by  an  admirable 
paper  published  in  the  Zrilw/u-tft  fur  Asxijrioloyie,  i.  pp. 
•4-14— 4-1  x,  by  Theodor  Xoldeke.  NY>ldeke  accepted  Ganneau's 
discovery  that  the  phrase  in  Dan.  v.  contains  names  of  weights, 


I'lll    clearh     -:i\\     in      /pfl    I  he  shekel,  e  \  pla  i  n  ilii-;   I  he   I  liree  yvord.s 

^pn  and  D"i£?  olute  forme  of  NMrj  ,  Nspn  <  and 

respectively,      In  she  oase  of  xyj  in-  notioee  (hat  the 

\\oid  for  ini!:a  in  S\  riac  occurs  only  in  (lie  emphatic  stale, 
XT.}  ,  :i  form  like  X'Jp  Teed.'  •  AdmiUm-  thai  theahsolute 
stale  of  Mich  V701  nvoK  6761  lound,  he  adds  ihat  accord 

bo  all  analogy,  and  especially  al'ter  the  manner  of  at  I  jecti\  68 
and  participle--  like  Syriac  Xm  XS.l  .  (&  -////'//.  N'OI  i\Ml?.V. 
Nyj  N\ould  ha\e  heen  in  the  older  lan^na^e  the  absolute 

of    x*yj.      Regarding  the   xrj  xyj  of    Dan,    \ 

repetitiitn    »»f    the    same    word,    he  accordingly 

tin'  translation,   '  a  mina,  a  mtna,  a  shekel  and  halt'  minas." 

A  third  attempt  to  explain  the  enigma  WUfl  adxanced  in 
lss.  li\  1  >r.  GrBOrg  llotl'mann,  of  Kiel,  who  dilTcrcd  from 
V-ldcke  onl\  in  in^that  7pJ;l  'shekel'  iniixlit  he  in 

appitsiii.ui  to  NJ'J  explainiiii;-  ^pP  X]*J  as  'a  mina  in  shekel 
pieces.'  (/tftc/tr.  j'a  1^  ..  ii.  !."»  ISV 

(ianneau's  dlBOOVeTJ  and  its  t-ritical  scrutiny  l»y  Noldeke 
ha\e  estahlished  (he  fact  heyond  donht  that  N*yj  ^pH  and 
f'D^D  «»f  \t  •  re  to  he  consideri'tl  as  names  of  weights. 

It  does  _  not  seem  necc^ar\,  !io\\e\cM\  to  regard  XJ*J  N^*J  as 
a  repetition  of  (he  same  won!.  A  Noldeke  himself  has 
noticed,  hm  did  not  adopt  in  his  interpretation,  the  form  XJ*J 
can  he  regarded  MB  a  pasM\e  participle  Teal  from  X^*J  *  to 
count/  as  Aranuean  and  S\  riac  \erhs  A/Y/<r  }'<V//  form  their 
76  participles  in  this  marnu  In  this  way  the 

m\Mcnons  sentence  max  he  translated  as  follows:    "There  ha\e 
heen   counted   a  mina,  a  shekel   and    half  minas.'      This  transla 
(ion  which    was   siii^ested    hy     l*rof.    llaiipt    in    the   session    of 
the  Semitic  Seminar^   «>l    the   Johns  Hopkins  l'niyersit\   of  the 
N»':ir  w»>nld    seem    to    receixe    additional    eontinnat  ion, 

when    we   consider   the   peculiar  application  of   these   names  of 


'  l(    max   lu-  \vcll   to  n-iuMilx   iliat    NoMckc  Joe.   c/7..   tl,")^  consiilcrcil  it 

I  tin-  --I'u  K  ,'(  (lu-  language  t.»  regard    f*L?^£?   M  a  «lual  in  form  as 

.li.lti.i!iM»\ni.     (JEW  lloil'iuaiin,    Zt'itm'hr. 

pointed  i>u(  tliat  in  mean  in-,,  .it  lea^t,  (he  won  I  lias 

a  dual  l.uve  HIM  a-  in  Q'*J^   '  t  u 

Hie  Johns    Hopkins   I'nhvi'siti/   Circnhi         "         18,  />.    101    ami  the 
o|«kiu^  Ul  i;?. 


•ill-    to    tlir    circumstance-     under     which     flic    writing     ap 

peared. 
Gannean,  among  ;i  niimlxT  of  rather  fanciful  explanations 

recalled  the  Talniudic  metaphorical  !  POE  ami  DH£D, 

^  niina/  and  c  half  mina/  In  I  In-  Talmudic  writ  inir-  we  find 

ionallv  tin-  inferior  -on  of  a  worthy  lather,  culled  va  half 
niina  son  of  a  mina'  TOO  p  D"l£3;,  while  B  iperior  to 

hi.-  father  i-  -poken  oi'  B£  '  a  iniii:i  -"ii  .  d'  a  h;d  f  in  in;i  '  ( POO 

p),  ;uid    si   >on    (Mjiiid    to    hi-     f;ither   ;i-    w  ;i   iniiiii    .-«»n    of   a 

ina1  (ni*J  p  nyj/1.     In  ;i  rather  vague  manner  characteri  tie 

of   Ins  whole  paper.  ( ,;iiine;i  n  th;it   the    IliUieal    ;iulhor 

iniu'ht  hsj.ve  had  in  mind  .-oine  -neli  ;dlii-ion,  ;md  hint  witlioiit 
;iny  delinite  e\  j.l;ni;it  ion  th;it  ;i  |»;ir;dle|  nii^ht  h;ive  heen  nie;mt 
hetU'een  .\el)iieh;idne//;ir,  the  father  and  Uel-Jia/./a  r  the 
-on.  Keterrinjj-  to  pD"l5,  he  mention-  that  thi-  \\or(|.  owinu 
to  it-  re-eml)lanee  to  D")£)  '  Per-ian/  ma\  ha\e  determined 

the    choice   of    tip  ,     theme     l<,   explain     the     prophec\ 

relative  to  the  coming  of  'lie  IVr  !        '•crtainl\  jaf e  to 

'iat   (.anneaii  arri\<-(|  ;it   no  definite   conclu.-ioii  on    the     ul. 

ject.     ( >n  th-  rt i«-lc.  he  fancifully  com| . 

the    whole    BCene    of   Chapter    v.    hoth    to  He    from    tJie 

•  tian  '  !;••  be    head  '  and  to  the  -cene  often   IOIIIK!  on 

;  cylinder-,  repp  ited    on    a  throne 

holding   I  !"j-    lihation-.  delabrum,    an     in-criptiofi 

on  the    -eal    and   two    p'-i1  of    whom    pre  ent      the    other 

to  the  _i»-ool.  I'.ahylon  and  K^vpt  he  thought  ma\  have  in 
Ihienced  the  author  of  I)anicl  in  hi-  description  of  the  j'ea  I 
of  I5el.-hax/. 

Nolde|:e    \virh    hi-  u-iial    c;nition  a,ttempted    nothing    heyond 
the  mere  grammatical  explanation  of  the  \\ord-    l.nt    Iloll'mann 

i'J  of   hi-   article)    con-ider.-d    that  pD")D,  4  two    halfini 
referred  to  a  divi-ion  of   the   I'jnpire  bi  the    M'-de    hai'iu 

and  the   Per.-iai!  ' 

<<"»•»'/•  w»,  nrj  ^VN  Di£D  p  n:rj  xy  novo 
:DiQ  p  n:t:  ^vx  n:t3  p  n:s  NT  ^NI  n:o  p  • |; 

thai  a.  jiiina  ~.< >n  of  a  halt-jnina  <-<,in<-\o;i  mina.  -.on  of  a  niina.  (>ut  not 
n  of  a  niiria  -lioul'l  '-onn'  to  a  niina  on  of  a  lialf  inina.' 
f'lmliliiiy.flir.i  \\'i',i-lt>i-lmrh.  ii.  l>.  I'). 

paronOOQU  •  inai  l;«--|    ;,|   .,  !,•,    iVrtlioMt.  '  |);mi«-l.'  , 

l)ani«-|.     , 

2 


in 

\Ve  ha vi;  seen  that  the  mysterious  sentence  contains  three 
names  of  weights  grouped  together  in  a  strange  order,  the  two 
greater  quantities  being  separated  by  the  lesser;  i.e.  mina, 
shekel  and  half-minas.  It  may  be  supposed  that  beneath  these 
terms  lies  some  typical  meaning  which  is  not  fully  brought  out 
in  the  explanation  of  the  sentence  by  Daniel.  The  interpreta- 
tion which  the  writer  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the  prophet  is 
based  on  a  paronomasia.  Thus,  mina  (KJQ)  is  explained  by 
NJP  <  to  count,'  '  God  has  counted  thy  kingdom  and  finished 
it.'  Shekel  (^pp)  is  explained  by  ^pn  'to  weigh:'  'Thou 
art  weighed  in  the  balances  and  found  wanting.'  Half-mina 
(D*l$)  is  explained  by  D"l|)  <  to  divide.'  '  The  kingdom  has 
been  divided  (fiDH£))  and  given  to  the  Medes  and  Persians.' 
In  the  latter  case  there  is  clearly  a  double  paronomasia  on 
DHS  'Persian.' 

Professor  Haupt,  following  up  the  idea  of  Ganneau  regard- 
ing the  symbolical  meaning  of  the  words,  explained  the  mina, 
which  is  the  largest  Babylonian  weight,  as  an  allusion  to  the 
great  King  Nebuchadnezzar ;  the  shekel,  one  sixtieth  as  valu- 
able," as  the  symbol  of  Belshazzar,  whom  the  author  of  Daniel 
considered  the  unworthy  son  and  successor  of  the  founder  of 
the  Babylonian  empire ;  and  the  two  half-minas  as  referring 
to  the  division  of  the  kingdom  of  Nebuchadnezzar  between 
the  Medes  and  Persians.  If  the  sentence  be  understood  in 
this  way,  as  indicating  a  comparison  of  persons,  it  becomes 
clear  that  &OO  &OD  can  hardly  be  considered  a  repetition  of 
the  same  word,  as  there  would  be  no  point  in  thus  repeating 
the  symbol  for  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  mysterious  sentence 
therefore  implies  a  scathing  comparison  of  the  unworthy  last 
king  of  Babylon  with  his  great  predecessor,  and  a  prophecy  of 

8  It  is  well  known  that  the  weight  mina  contained  60  shekels,  this 
shekel  serving  also  as  the  smallest  gold  unit;  i.  e.,  a  gold  shekel 
weighed  one  sixtieth  of  the  weight  rnina.  The  money  mina  on  the  other 
hand  contained  only  50  shekels.  See  Levy,  Chald.  Worterbuch,  under 
}$J£  and  compare  C.  F.  Lehmann,  in  Verhandlungen  der physikalischen 
Uwllwluiftzu  Berlin,  published  February,  1890,  p.  95,  also  JVr/mm/- 
lungen  der  Berliner  Anthropologischen  Gesellschaft,  March,  1889,  p. 
k.M!»,  '  Encycl.  Brit.'  xvii.  631  and  Haupt,  Akkad.  Swm-riNclic.  Keil- 
xrli,-ifttexte,p.  55,42:  (Jibit  1  IIHI.-IHI,  1:3  Sii/li-tiiii.  'tin-  interest  of  one 
iniiiM  is  twelve  ^lukels;  /.  c. ,  at  -Ml  pel'  cent. 


1L 

the  speedy  downfall  of  the  native  Babylonian  dynasty  and  the 
division  of  the  empire  between  the  Modes  and  Persians. 
Nebuchadnezzar,  practically  the  founder  of  the  Babylonian 
empire  and  really  the  greatest  name  of  the  time,  might  well 
be  called  the  mina.  The  author  of  Daniel  throughout  the 
fifth  chapter  is  perfectly  right  in  comparing  him  with  the 
insignificant  last  king.  As  will  be  seen  from  the  subsequent 
discussion  of  the  various  accounts  regarding  the  fall  of  Baby- 
lon, the  two  chief  points  in  the  later  Babylonian  history  arc 
really  the  rise  and  development  of  the  empire  under  Nebuchad- 
nezzar and  its  final  overthrow  under  Belshazzar's  father 
Xabonidu>,  so  that  the  Biblical  author  in  choosing  Nebu- 
chadnezzar as  the  father  «>('  Belshazzar,  although  inaccurate  a> 
to  detail,  nevertheless  reflect*  faithfully  the  general  historical 
facts  of  the  period. 

The  Medes  and  Persian.-  were  rhe  people  who  destroyed  the 
unity  of  the  Babylonian  power  and  divided  between  them  the 
great  empire  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  Medes.  a  brief  outline 
of  whose  history,  previous  to  their  subjugation  by  the  Persians, 
is  given  below,  attained  the  height  of  their  greatness  under 
Cyaxan-.  who  subdued  the  A ->yrians  and  laid  waste  Nineveh 
their  pnmd  capital.  Although  attaining  a  considerable  in- 
fluence in  the  farther  Mast,  they  were  certainly  never  a  world 
power  until  their  union  with  the  Persians  under  ( 'yrus.  This 
combination  was  sufficient  to  subjugate  the  entire  West  and  to 
establish  an  empire  which  lasted  for  centuries.  Why  the 
author  of  Daniel  introduces  a  Median  dynasty  before-  the  Per- 
sians is  discussed  fully  hereafter. 

But  why  was  it  that  the  learned  scribes  whom  the  king  sum- 
moned to  decipher  the  inscription  were  totally  unable  to  read 
and  interpret  the  sentence '. 

To  explain  this  difficulty  a  great  number  of  conjectures  have 
been  advanced  by  various  commentators.'1  Thus  Liiderwald  in 
his  fc  Critical  examination  of  the  first  six  chapters  of  Daniel,' 
(quoted  by  Bertholdt,  k  Daniel/  j>.  ?M)  considered  the  portent 
a>  a  vision  of  the  king  alone,  which  no  one  save  the  super- 

'•'  For  a  collection  of  the  opinions  of  the  older  commentators,  c/. 
Pfeiffer  '  Dubia  Vexata,'  p.  503,  quoted  by  Bertholdt,  p.  ijr,o. 


12 


naturally  gifted  Daniel  could  interpret.10  This  is  the  saint-  a> 
Calvin's  conjecture,  which  lie  offered  as  one  of  two  possible 
hypotheses  :  "  probabile  est  vel  scripturam  f  uisse  regi  proposi- 
tain,  et  latuisse  onmes  Chaldasos  vel  ita  excaecatos  fuisse ;  ut 
videndo  non  viderunt,  quemadmodum  etiam  Dens  saepe  ejus- 
modi  stnporeni  denuntiat  Jndaeis."  See  edition  of  Baum, 
Cnnitz  and  Reuss,  vol.  xl,  col.  704.) 

Nothing  in  the  text  of  chapter  v.  however,  seems  to  support 
such  a  view.  The  evident  terror  not  only  of  the  king  but  also 
of  his  lords,  and  the  statement  in  verse  8,  that  the  wise  men 
could  neither  read  nor  interpret  the  writing  seem  to  show  that 
the  author  had  no  intention  of  representing  the  portent  as 
merely  a  freak  of  the  king's  brain. 

Some  of  the  Talmndists  thought  that  the  words  were  writ- 
ten according  to  the  Cabbalistic  alphabet  JJOfiN  ;  i.  e.  one  in 
which  the  first  letter  has  the  last  as  its  equivalent.11  It  may  be 
well  to  note  in  connection  with  this  from  the  Ethiopic  corre- 
spondence of  Job  Ludolf  published  by  Flemming  in  the  second 
volume  of  Delitzsch  and  Haupt's  Beitr'dge  zur  Assyriologie™ 
that  a  similar  cryptographic  method  of  writing  involving  the 
interchange  of  letters  was  known  to  the  Abyssinians. 

It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  discuss  here  the  idea  advanced 
by  some  of  the  other  Talmudists  that  the  characters  of  the 
mysterious  sentence  were  arranged  in  three  lines  as  a  sort  of 
table  and  .were  to  be  read  vertically  and  not  horizontally.13 

10  See  D.  S.  Margoliouth,  '  Jephet  Ibn  All's  Daniel,'  p.  26. 

11  See  Buxtorf ,  '  Lexicon  Chaldaicum  Talmudicum  et  Rabbinicum,' 
col.  248,  and  Levy,    '  Neuhebraisches  und   Chaldaisches  Worterbuch ' 
under  rV?NN  ,  *1"IK  ->  DD*  •     [*Y?NN  however  is  due  to  a  process  quite 
different  to  £^J"1N  •     For  the  opinion  that  the  sentence  was  a  crypto- 
gram compare  Pfeiffer,  op.  cit.,  p.  805,  and  for  all  these  views  see  San- 
hedrim 22". 

12  Beitrdgezur  Assyriologie,  ii.  110. 

13 See  Ganneau,  loc.  cit.,  p.  88.  Some  considered  the  sentence  as 
an  anagram  ;  see  Levy,  '  Neuhebr.  und  Chald.  Worterb.',  under  Q^N  ; 
while  two  of  the  older  commentators,  Menochius  and  Mahlonatus 
thought  that  only  the  initial  letters  of  each  word  were  written. 
(They  are  quoted  by  Bertholdt,  *  Daniel,'  p.  350).  Jephet  Ibn  Ali,  the 
Karaite,  held  the  view  that  the  words  were  written  backward  ;  for  ex- 
:i niple  $X2  was  arranged  as  if  it  were  Q^X  ,  and  that  the  letters  of  all 
the  four  words  were  similarly  transposed.  See  Margoliouth's  transla- 
tion, p.  26.  Pfeiirer.  p.  SOS,  expressed  (lie  opinion  that  the  words  were 
written  in  'Chalda-an  letters  whieh  were  intricately  arranged. 


13 

Thube  and  others,  at  the  end  of  the  last  century,  (quoted  by 
Bertholdt,  *  Daniel/  351),  held  that  the  writing  may  have  ap- 
peared in  such  unusual  characters  as  to  prevent  its  decipher- 
ment hy  the  hierogrammatists  ;  and  the  Gottingen  Professor  of 
Biblical  Philology,  the  late  Ernst  Bertholdt,  suggested  that  it 
may  have  been  written  in  some  complicated  nourished  hand- 
writing (rharakterschrift,  k  Daniel/  p.  379).  It  is  interesting 
to  note  in  this  connection  that  so  great  a  scholar  as  JohailD 
Dayid  Michaelis,  of  Gottingen,  was  the  author  of  the  following 
wild  but  amusing  theory.  He  translated  the  exprosiun  'end 
of  the  hand'  (see  below,  Appendix  II.  note  to  yerse  5),  by 
'the  inner  surface  of  the  hand/  That  is,  the  hand  must  hayc 
appeared  to  the  king  as  if  writing  from  the  other  side  of  the 
wall,  which  by  some  my>terioii>  means  had  become  transpar- 
ent! The  writing  was  therefore  reveised  as'  if  in  a  mirror, 
which  fact  remained  unnoticed  until  Daniel  was  summoned 
(see  Michael!-.  '  I  )aniel/  j>/>.  4l»  5l)).  Some  scholars,  on  the 
other  hand,  believed  that  the  inscription  may  have  been  in  a 
foreign  language  or  character  unknown  to  the  wise  men. 
Thus  I'rideaux  (quoted  by  Bertholdt,  :»4S)  suggested  Old 
Pho-nician,  while  I'uscy  r  Daniel/  \\1(\]  believed  it  may  have 
been  written  in  the  old  Hebrew  script.  Finally,  some  recent 
critic-,  evidently  under  A.-.yriological  influence,  have  inclined 
to  the  opinion  that  tin-  words  presented  themselves  to  the  king- 
in  the  Babylonian  ideographic  character.  ' 

The  question  a>  to  the  difficulty  of  decipherment  is  really 
narrowed  down  to  one  of  two  hypothoo.  The  reason  why  the 
learned  scribes  whom  the  king  had  summoned  were  totally 
unable  to  read  or  interpret  the  writing  must  have  been  that  the 
mysterious  sentence  appeared  either  in  a  foreign  language  or 
in  an  unusual  form  of  the  vernacular.  Had  the  warning  been 
written  in  a  foreign  language,  the  probability  is  that  it  would 
have  been  immediately  recognized  at  so  cosmopolitan  a  court 
as  the  Babylonian,  which  had  come  in  contact  with  so  many 
foreign  nations.  Then,  too,  had  the  writing  appeared  in  an 

14  So,  for  instance,  Andrea,  in  his  article  on  the  Feast  of  Belshazzar 
in  Beweis  d<  *  (Ihinhriix.  ISSM.  j>jt.  268-264,  ami  de  Lagarde  in  his  admir- 
able review  of  E.  Havet's  La  modennte  des  prophdtes,  in  Mittheilungen, 
iv.  p.  364  =  Oott.  Gel  Anz.,  1891,  p.  519. 


14 

unknown  idiom,  the  effect  of  tin:  interpretation  would  have 
been,  to  n  great  extent,  lost  on  tlie  king.  But  as  soon  as  the 
explanation  was  given,  Belshazzar  understood  it  perfectly. 

It  is  certainly  most  natural  to  suppose  that  the  inscription 
was  originally  written  in  the  Babylonian  language  and  in  the 
cuneiform  script,  having  been  translated  later  and  handed  down 
in  the  Aramaean  in  the  form  which  we  find  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel.16  This  view  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  sen- 
tence can  be  reproduced  in  Babylonian  with  surprisingly  little 
change. 

The  Aramaean  sentence,  as  given  in  the  twenty -fifth  verse 
of  the  fifth  chapter,  reads  pD"l£)1  ^pD  &OO  N30 .  As  stated 
above,  the  first  JOp  is  probably  to  be  considered  as  a  passive 
participle  from  fcOQ  4  to  count.'  In  this  case  the  correspond- 
ing form  in  Assyrian  would  be  muni.™  The  second  N^D 
meaning  mina  is  equivalent  to  the  Assyrian  man  a  =  '  mina,' 
usually  written  ideographically  nt«-iut  and  in  form  the  pas- 
sive participle  of  inanu  'to  count.'  The  Assyrian  word  for 
mina,  although  generally  occurring  ideographically,  is  occasion- 
ally found  written  jtl'ttc.  Thus  in  Nebuchadnezzar  IT,  6  ;  189.  5, 

15  Kamphausen  in  his  pamphlet,  '  Das  Buch  Daniel  und  die  neuere  Ge- 
schichtsforschung,'  1893,  pp.  45,  46,  has  unintentionally  misrepresented 
me,  as  stating  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  Circulars,  No.  98,  p.  94,  that  the 
author  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  familiar  with  the  cuneiform  inscrip- 
tions! I  merely  indicated  that  the  original  of  the  mysterious  sentence 
may  have  been  in  Babylonian. 

10  Passives  with  internal  vowel  change  have  not  been  lost  in  Assy- 
rian but  are  not  developed.  The  active  and  passive  participles  are  not 
yet  sharply  distinguished,  the  difference  being  merely  arbitrary.  For 
examples  of  the  passive  participle,  cf.  the  frequent  kitna  labirixii  xutir 
—  'written  like  its  original,'  and  sapux  epru  =  'dust  is  spread.'  See 
Haupt,  Journal  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  1878,  p.  244.  We  may 
compare  in  this  connection  the  frequent  passive  meaning  of  the  Inten- 
sive Permansive.  See  Zimmern,  Busspsalmen,  p.  11. 

The  Assyrian  Permansive  must  be  considered  the  prototype  of  the 
common  Semitic  Perfect,  as  there  are  no  evidences  that  Assyrian  once 
possessed  and  then  lost  its  Perfect.  J.  A.  Knudtzon  in  the  Ztwln:  fi'ir 
A*Ni/riologie,  vii,  p.  48  (April,  1892),  goes  too  far.  however,  in  demand- 
ing a  common  name  for  both  the  Pennansive  and  Perfect,  as  they  are 
by  no  means  fully  identical.  The  Assyrian  Permansive  is  not  a  stereo- 
typed tense  like  the  ordinary  Semitic  Perfect,  as  the  language  can  use 
any  noun  or  adjective  in  a  permansive  sense  by  suflixing  the  pronomi- 
nal endings.  See  in  this  connection  llanpt.  Inc.  at.,  p.  2-1(5. 


15 

in  Tallquist,  i  Spraelie  der  Contracte  Nabun&'ids,'jp.  tM>,  we  find 
the  form  n«t->i  x-u  •  in  Xebuch.  4J>.  8.4.  in  Strassmaier,  '  Baby- 
loni.sche  Texte/  ma-nij  and  in  Nebuch.  07.4;  170.5;  282.5, 
in  Strassmaier,  l  Bab.  Texte,'  ma-ni-e.  N<tnn  is  a  form  like 
(/<//( A  'reed.'17 

Itis  interesting  to  notice  that  the  familiar  Mammon  (Ma/iwm?) 
of  the  Xew  Testament  may  be  a  loan  word  from  the  same  stem 
as  ///'/////,  mina.  There  is  an  Assyrian  word  nniim'tim  proba- 
bly meaning  '  a  vessel  capable  of  holding  a  inina  full/  which 
occurs  in  the  El  Amarua  inscriptions,  frequently  in  connection 
with  />/>//•//.  .lensen  considered  rightly  that  />/>//•//  and  iniinnnm 
are  the  prototype  of  the  Manda'an  N^'EI  JOJHN  '  money 
and  property/  with  metathesis  iu  the  case  of  A ////•//  and 
NDJIIX .  A  similar  change  of  consonants  he  finds  in  /^//v/////// 
•stonecutter'  and  N^DTDN.'"  \<ildeke,  'Maud,  (iram/, 
j>.  r>(»,  connects  Manda'an  NJI^O  with  the  Syriac 
Mafjicovas.  It  is  extremely  probable,  therefore,  that 
is  the  original  of  Ma/^ojm?.  Hoffmann's  idea  is,  of  course, 
untenable  that  -=^i-=  i>  a  loan  word  from  the  Ph<enician 
D^O4  treasures/  which,  he  thinks,  is  connected  with  the 
(iivek  vdfju((r)fJLa.  ^yriac  (Grammar' — Engl.  edi- 

tion, j>.  xi.)  Dyj  is  ])robably  a  plural  of  Jll*J ,  mina,  and 
is  consequently  purely  a  Semitic  stem.  (( 1ompare  Levy,  *  Plxe- 
ni/isches  W^orterbuch,'  ls<»4.) 

Shekel,  the  third  word  of  the  mysterious  >»-ntence,  by  regu- 
lar mutation  of  j")  and  ^corresponds  to  the  Assyrian  ,v/y/^, 
from  NiKjtiht  'to  weigh/  The  word  is  almost  invariably  writ- 
ten ideographic-ally  '\'\\  but  the  form  x/V////  is  now  established 
as  the  propel-  pronunciation. ia 

17  Note  th;it  a  number  of  forms  iil«>  <i<mn  suffer  apocope  of  the  long 
final  vo\vcl  ill  (lie  construct  state.  Thus  t/<in  /'i  -<tnu  ;  sadu.  •  inoun- 
tain/.sf/'/;  it<i*ii.  •  l»c:ircr.'  u<t* ;  r<i*u.  "possessor."  rax;  rahu,  'great,' 
rab. 

"For  tl.e  Mandsean  N31T01  N^")N ,  sec  Noldeke,  M<iH<li\i*<-ln' 
Crdnninilik,  it.  •")().  nid  1'or  ^sl?D^J^^  compare  Jensen,  Komnofoi/ic. 
293,  ran.  '3:  :i-YJ.  rt-in.  For  e.\;imples  of  metathesis  sec  Zimmern.  Zcit- 
.s'c// /•//'/  /'/'/•  Assyriologie,  v.  1G4,  ?i.  4. 

111  See  Bruno  Meissnei-,  Ztwli.  fi'u-  .\nsyriologie,  vii.  (April,  1892),  p.  20. 

AltbtibyloniSCheS     rrinifrrrht,    p.    93.      Delitzsch,     ^1.s.s-///-/.sr//r.s     UVJ/'/r/'- 
i.'  14.  //.  4.  ;ni(l  Lelmiann  in  a  metrolo^ic;il   pnper  in  th<-    \rn-lmml- 
<l<  r    Hn-liiirr   An.thrnjntfnifisrht'ii    r/r.sr//.sr// r//7.   .June   20,    IS01,   y>. 


16 

's  reading  for   TU,  da/ragmctna  (Ztschr.  fur  Assy- 
i.  4tfO),  he  has  himself  abandoned.     (See  Beit  fit  y<-  .:///• 
/V,  i.  496.)     Siqlu  is  a  form  like  Sibtu  'staff';  igru 
4  hire,'  etc. 

The  last  word  of  the  phrase  f*p")@  '  half  minas,'  plural  of 
,  is  equivalent  to  the  Assyrian  parsu  4a  part,'  from 
'tQ  separate.'20  J^u'su  means  technically  a  section  of 
a  chapter  or  a  paragraph.  (See  Keilinschr.,  BibliotheTe-,  ii. 
p.  284,  I.  39.) 

Combining  then  these  words  as  in  the  Aramaean  of  Daniel, 
the  supposed  Assy ro-Baby Ionian  original  may  be  restored  as  fol- 
lows: mani  mana  siqlu  u  parsdni,  'there  have  been  counted 
a  miiia,  a  shekel  and  parts.'21  (Parts  of  a  mina  =  half  -minas.) 
i  Counted'  means,  of  course,  in  this  connection,  'the  following 
has  been  fixed  by  fate.'  We  may  compare  the  use  of  j"UD  in 
Isaiah  Ixv.  12,  'and  I  will  allot  you  to  the  sword.'  (VTJD1 
D*"]f"f?  DDfTO) ;  Psalm  cxlvii.  4,  '  He  fixes  the  number  of  the 
stars'  (0*3513*?  "ISpD  rtjlD). 

If  it  be  thus  assumed  that  the  mysterious  inscription  appeared 
in  the  Babylonian  language  and  in  cuneiform  characters,  it  is 
easy  to  explain  the  inability  of  the  king  and  his  lords,  and  even 
of  the  skilled  scribes  to  decipher  the  writing,  as  an  ideographic 
rendering  of  these  names  of  weights  would  have  baffled  the 

518,  n.  1.  The  stem  saqdlu  may  be  a  shaphel  formation  from  qtilu  '  be 
light.'  Compare  sakdnu  probably  from  f)3  and  sardru  from  *"flj$  . 
In  the  case  of  saqdlu,  however,  the  §  is  a  £?'i,  appearing  in  Arabic  as 
i«^,  while  the  S  of  the  shaphel  is  «s,  because  we  find  it  in  Arabic  as 
.p, .  We  may  explain  this  by  supposing  that  such  a  form  as  Jj£j* 
with  cy  was  borrowed  from  a  dialect  where  the  original  ffi  of  the 
shaphel  was  lisped  like  jl .  Compare  the  case  of  p*V)£)  •  ^ee  below, 
Appendix  II.,  note  to  verse  7,  and  Beitrdge  zur  Assyr.,  i.  181,  note  2. 

-° par dsu  =  ' separate,'  in  Asurb.,  ix.  46  ;  'check,  stop,'  in  Sennach., 
vi.  14,  iv.  R.  57,  7a,  East  India  House  Inscr.,  ii.  19  ; — 'quarrel,'  in  iv.  58, 
22  ;— '  alienate,'  in  Asurb.,  iii.  83. 

81  Professor  Haupt  informs  me  that  Dr.  P.  Jensen  of  Strassburg  in  a 
University  lecture  explained  the  mysterious  words  of  Dan.  v.  as  having 
probably  come  from  some  Assyrian  proverb,  which  he  thinks  might 
have  read  about  as  follows  :  manu  mane  Saqlu  parse*,  'minas  were 
counted  but  half  minas  were  weighed.'  Jensen  thought  that  this 
phrase  was  used  whenever  anything  proved  <>f  less  value  than  tirst 
appearances  seemed  to  warrant. 


17 

ingenuity  of  the  most  expert  scholars  of  the  Babylonian  court. 
Of  course  it  cannot  be  denied,  as  Lagarde  has  pointed  out,  that 
the  ideographic  values  of  these  four  words,  '  count,  mina,  shekel 
and  part/  were  undoubtedly  signs  with  which  any  educated 
Babylonian  was  familiar.  (4  Mittheilungen,'  iv.  304.)  If,  how- 
ever, we  suppose  that  the  ideograms  were  written  close  together 
without  any  division  between  the  individual  words,  a  style  of 
writing  we  often  meet  with  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions,  thus: 


it  would  be  just  as  hard  to  read  as  a  rebus  and  would  puzzle 
the  most  skillful  decipherer.  The  difficulty  would  have  been 
still  more  increased  if  the  ideograms  had  been  grouped  in  some 
unusual  way,  severing  the  natural  connection  of  the  component 
elements;  for  example,  thus: 


If  the  signs  had  been  written  in  this  manner  it  would  have 
been  almost  impossible  to  arrive  at  their  true  meaning.  The 
tirst  combination,  SID-MA,  might  have  some  fifteen  different 
meanings,  the  second  group,  N  A-TL-L.  might  signify  4  is  fit' 
or  •  suitable/  while  the  third  and  last,  HAIM'AU.  is  capable 
of  explanation  in  a  variety  of  ways.  "  Of  course,  as  soon  as 
one  is  told  the  meaning  of  the  combination,  the  sentence  at 
once  becomes  clear. 

De  Lagarde  (/.  r.)  has  amusingly  remarked  that  the  riddle  is 
of  the  same  nature  as  that  of  the  Innsbrucker  who.  as  a  greet- 
ing to  his  emperor  coming  to  the  Tyrolean  capital,  had  the  fig- 
ure of  a  Franciscan  monk  painted  on  his  house  with  the  word 
"wie"  written  over  it.  The  rebus  is  to  read  '  \Vie  Franz  ist 
kaner'  (Tyrolese  pronunciation  for  "  keiner  ').  This,  however, 
is  hardly  a  good  parallel.  A  better  illustration  of  the  nature 
of  the  mysterious  sentence  may  be  found  in  the  tricky  Latin 
phrases  often  given  in  Latin  primers  in  (iermany  :  •/.  e.  'no  bis 
per  pontem/  "anser  bibit  niagis  ter,'  'mea  mater  est  mala  sus/ 
etc. 

21  For  SID-MA  see  Bri'mnow's  'List,'  nos.  5964-5981  and  5997-8.     For 
unlfi.   iiii'Miiin^  <  is  fit,  suitable,'  see  'Nimrod  Kjn'c."  67,  I.  18,  while  for 
BAR-BAR,  compare  :I.^JUM  Rn"iim<>\v.  >/<>.  \12Sff. 
3 


CHAPTEE  SECOND. 

THE  HISTORICAL  INACCURACIES    OF   THE   FIFTH   CHAPTER 
OF   DANIEL. 

The  above  more  or  less  conjectural  explanations  have  been 
offered  under  the  supposition  that  the  account  given  in  the 
fifth  chapter  of  Daniel  is  to  a  certain  extent  historical.  It  can- 
not be  denied,  however,  that  if  the  fifth  chapter,  and  indeed 
the  entire  book  of  Daniel  be  regarded  as  pretending  to  full 
historical  authority,  the  Biblical  record  is  open  to  all  manner 
of  attack.  The  Book  of  Daniel  must  not  be  considered  as 
intended  by  the  author  to  be  a  veracious  account  of  events 
which  took  place  at  the  time  of  the  fall  of  Babylon,  but  rather 
as  a  political  pamphlet  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
It  is  now  the  general  opinion  of  most  scholars  who  study  the 
Old  Testament  from  a  critical  point  of  view,  that  the  Book  of 
Daniel  cannot  have  originated,  according  to  the  accepted 
theory,*  at  the  time  of  Cyrus.  The  following  are  the  chief 
reasons  for  such  a  conclusion. 

It  should  be  noticed,  first,  that  the  position .  of  the  Book 
among  the  Hagiographa  instead  of  among  the  DWDJ  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  it  must  have  been  introduced  after  the 
closing  of  the  Prophetic  Canon.  The  explanation  that  the 
Apocalyptic  nature  of  the  work  did  not  entitle  it  to  a  position 
among  the  Prophetic  books  is  hardly  satisfactory.  Some  com- 
mentators believed  that  Daniel  was  not  an  actual  NOJ  or 
prophet,  in  the  proper  sense,  but  only  a  seer  (Jlffl — so  Hiiver- 
nick),  or  else  that  he  was  a  prophet  merely  by  natural  gifts, 
but  not  by  official  standing.1  If  Daniel,  however,  had  really 

*  See  additional  note  A. 

1  The  explanation  originated  with  the  Rabbinical  writers  that  Daniel 
l':i<l  the  £HpH  im  'spirit  of  holiness,'  but  not  the  nNID^H  ITD 
'the  official  inspiration  '  (Qamchi,  'Preface  to  the  Psalms';  Maiiuon. 
•  More  Nebochim,'  2.  41,  119,  quoted  by  Bertholdt,  p.  xiii).  The  Rab- 
binical device  was  followed  and  elaborated  by  a  number  of  the  later 
orthodox  commentators.  Thus,  Auberlen,  '  Daniel,  pp.  34,  35,  Franz 
Dclil/sdi  in  Her/oi;  uml  i'litt's  Real  Encycl.  iii.  271,  272,  'Commen 
tiny  <»n  Isaiah,"  |>.  X,  Keil,  •  I  )aniel,'p.  23,  etc.  See  also  in  this  connec- 
lion  Kraiiichfcld.' Daniel,'  />-  •>,  Len.^erke,  '  Daniel,'  p.  5(15,  etc. 


19 

seen  the  visions  which  are  *  attributed  to  him  by  the  work  bear- 
ing his  name,  he  was  certainly  a  great  prophet,  and,  as  has  been 
pointed  ont  by  Bleek,  would  have  had  fully  as  much  right  to 
be  ranked  as  such  as  Amos,  Ezekiel  or  Zecliariah.2  The  natu- 
ral explanation  regarding  the  position  of  the  I  look  of  Daniel 
is  that  the  work  could  not  have  been  in  existence  at  the  time 
of  the  completion  of  the  second  part  of  the  canon,  as  otherwise 
the  collectors  of  the  prophetic  writings,  who  in  their  case  did 
not  neglect  even  the  parable  of  Jonah,  would  hardly  have 
ignored  the  record  of  such  a  irreat  prophet  as  Daniel  is  repre- 
sented to  be. 

Second! t/^  the  silence  of  Je>i i >  Siracli  concerning  Daniel  si-ems 
to  show  that  the  prophet  was  unknown  to  that  late  writer. 
Jesus  Siracli,  in  his  list  of  celebrated  men  (chapter  4l»).  makes 
no  mention  of  Daniel,  but  passes  from  Jeremiah  to  K/ekiel  and 
then  to  the  twelve  minor  prophetfl  and  Zerubhabel.  If  Daniel 
had  been  known  to  Jesus  Siracli  we  would  certainly  expect  to 
find  him  in  this  list,  probably  between  Jeremiah  and  K/ekiel. 
Again  the  only  explanation  appears  to  he  that  the  Hook  of 
Daniel  was  not  known  to  Jesus  Siracli,  who  wrote  between 
k200  and  ISO  \\.  ( \  Mad  so  celebrated  a  person  as  Daniel 
been  known,  he  could  hardly  have  ex-aped  mention  in  such  a 
complete  list  of  Israel's  leading  spirits.  Eengfitenberg  re- 
marked that  K/ra  and  Monlecai  were  also  left  iinmeiitioned, 
but  the  case  is  not  parallel.  Daniel  i>  reprex-nted  in  the  work 
attributed  to  him  a>  a  great  prophet,  while1  K/ra  appears  as 
nothing  more  than  a  rather  prominent  priest  and  scholar. 

A  third  argument  against  an  early  origin  for  the  book  is  the 
fact  that  the  post-exilic  prophets  exhibit  no  trace  of  its  influenc". 
Had  the  Hook  of  Daniel  been  extant  and  generally  known 
since  the  time  of  Cyrus,  it  would  be  reasonable  to  look  for 
some  sign  of  its  power  among  the  writings  of  prophets  like 
llaggai,  Zechariah  and  Malachi. 

8  Bleek,  '  Einleitung,'  5th  ed.,  418.  In  the  LXX.  the  book  is  placed 
directly  after  Ezekiel,  which  shows  that  the  translators  considered  it  a 
prophetic  work.  Compare  in  this  connection  the  opinion  of  J;u  h.ja 
(quoted  by  Bertholdt,  loc.  cit.)  who  attributed  to  Daniel  the  highest 
degree  of  prophetic  inspiration  ;  ^njlH  JlVp 


20 

In  addition  to  this,  the  actual  contents  of  the  book  itself 
seem  to  preclude  the  supposition  of  even  an  approximately 
contemporary  origin  for  the  work.  The  Book  of  Daniel  differs 
materially  from  all  other  prophetic  writings  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  especial  details  of  its  prophecies.  Other  prophets 
confine  themselves  to  vague  and  general  predictions,  but  the 
Book  of  Daniel  gives  a  detailed  account  of  historical  events 
which  may  easily  be  recognized  and  identified  through  the 
thin  veil  of  prophetic  mystery  thrown  lightly  around  them. 
If  it  be  supposed  that  the  book  originated  at  the  time  of 
Cyrus,  the  positiveness  with  which  events  of  the  far  future  are 
prophesied  is  certainly  strange.  It  is  highly  suggestive  that 
while  the  Book  of  Daniel  contains  an  account  of  a  long  series 
of  historical  events,  just  those  occurrences  which  are  the  most 
remote  from  the  assumed  standpoint  of  the  writer  are  the  most 
correctly  stated,  while  the  nearer  we  approach  to  the  author's 
supposed  time,  the  more  inaccurate  does  he  become.  This  has 
especial  application  to  the  last  chapters,  x.-xii.,  where  the  com- 
bats between  the  Ptolemaides  and  Seleucides  are  so  clearly  laid 
before  the  reader  that  the  visions  have  more  the  appearance  of 
history  than  prophecy.  In  addition  to  this  correctness  of 
detail,  the  chronological  reckoning  by  days  for  future  events  is 
very  striking.  (Of.  chapter  viii.  14;  xii.  11,  12.) 

The  Hebrew  prophets  rarely  set  definite  times  for  future 
occurrences,  and  when  they  do,  give  a  date  in  round  numbers. 
(Except,  of  course,  in  the  interpolated  passage,  Is.  vii.  8 — in 
which  connection  see  Delitzsch, '  Comm.  on  Isaiah,'^>.  137.)  The 
prophecies  in  the  Book  of  Daniel  seem  to  centre  on  the  period 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  when  the  Syrian  prince  was  endeav- 
oring to  suppress  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and  substitute  for  it 
the  Greek  idolatry.  These  passages  either  break  oft'  directly 
with  the  overthrow  of  this  prince  or  else  add  a  prophecy  of 
freedom  for  God's  people  from  all  oppressions  and  the  an- 
nouncement of  a  Messianic  Kingdom  and  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead.  A  comparison  of  the  Apocalyptic  and  narrative 
chapters  makes  it  apparent  that  we  have  the  same  prophecies 
in  all,  repeated  in  different  forms.  The  vision  of  the  colossi! 
image  in  cli.  ii.  is  evidently  identical  with  the  vision  of  the  four 
Leasts  in  ch.  vii.  In  the  'Little  Horn,'  ch.  vii.  8 ;  viii.  V  and 


21 

the  wicked  prince  described  in  clis.  ix.-xi.,  who  is  to  work  such 
evil  aiiiou"-  the  saints,  we  have  clearly  one  and  the  same  per- 
son. Moreover,  in  all  the  prophecies,  a  period  of  trial  and 
tribulation  is  followed  by  the  triumph*  of  the  Lord  and  his 
saints.  According  to  the  Hook  of  Daniel  four  distinct  empires 
are  to  arise,  during  which  time  the  sufferings  of  the  saints  are 
to  increase  until  they  culminate  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  empire 
under  a  prince  worse  than  all  his  predecessors,  after  which  the 
Kingdom  of  (iod  is  to  appear.  A  careful  examination  of  the 
hook  makes  it  apparent  that  the  author  believed  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Uelsha/zar,  who  was 
displaced  by  Darius  the  Median,  and  he  in  turn  followed  by 
Cyril,'-  tlu-  Persian.  It  seems  evident,  therefore,  that  in  the 
mind  of  the  author  the  four  empires  were:  tirst.  the  IJahy Io- 
nian, represented  by  Xebiicliadne/zar  and  his  immediate  suc- 
r,  Uclshazzar;  second,  that  of  Darius  the  Median;  third, 
the  Persian  empire  of  Cyrus,  and  fourth,  the  empire  of  Alex- 
ander and  his  successors,  culminating  at  the  time  of  Antiochiis 
Kpiphanes.  ((  'ompare  Uen».  •  ( icschichte  des  Alfen  Testaments,' 
l>.  .V.C)  ff. )  It  is  now  generally  recognized  that  ch.  xi.  iM  \:>. 
refers  to  tin-  evil  deeds  of  Antiochiis  IV.  and  his  attempts 
against  the  Jewish  people  and  the  worship  of  Jehovah.  In 
chapter  xii.  follows  the  promise  of  salvation  from  the  tyrant. 
In  ch.  viii.  the  kinir  symbolized  by  the  •  Little  Horn/  of  whom 
it  is  said  that  he  will  come  from  one  of  four  kingdoms  which 
shall  be  formed  from  the  (ireek  empire  after  the  death  of  its 
first  kiiiij;-,  can  be  none  other  than  Antiochus  Kpiphanes.  In 
like  manner  do  the  references  in  ch.  ix.  plainly  allude 
to  this  prince.  (Compare  in  this  connection  IJleck,  "  Kin- 
leitmiu1.'  j>j>.  4*2^  jf.)  It  would  be  extremely  ditlicult  to  recon- 
cile these  facts  with  the  theory  of  a  Babylonian  authorship  for 
the  book,  because.  setting  aside  the  marvel  of  such  accurate 
prophecy  centuries  before  the  events  referred  to,  it  would  be 
natural  to  expect  that  a  prophet  of  the  time  of  the  Babylonian 
captivity  would  rather  direct  his  attention  to  the  freedom  of 
his  people  from  their  servitude  in  Habylon  than  from  the 
oppression  of  a  kinii1  who  ruled  centuries  later.  It  would  be 

*  See  additional  note  B. 


22 

nmiv  natural,  too,  to  expect  in  an  early  work  prophecies  of  the 
return  of  the  Jews  to  Palestine,  as  in  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and 
Isaiah,  rather  than  the  proclamation  of  an  ideal  Messianic  king- 
dom, such  as  we  find  in  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

Not  only  do  the  Apocalyptic  portions  of  the  book  seem  to 
preclude  the  theory  of  a  Babylonian  authorship,3  but  the 
numerous  inaccuracies  in  the  narrative  sections  make  it 
equally  difficult  to  hold  such  a  view.  Such  statements  as 
are  found,  for  example,  in  the  fifth  chapter  only,  which 
will  be  fully  discussed  below,  can  hardly  date  from  Baby- 
lonian times.  No  writer  living  at  the  Babylonian  court 
of  Cyrus  could  have  asserted,  for  instance,  that  Belshazzar 
was  the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,4  or  have  interpolated  a 
Median  ruler  between  the  last  king  of  Babylon  and  the  Per- 
sians. Nor  are  these  historical  inaccuracies  by  any  means 
confined  to  ch.  v.  Among  the  most  important  occurring  in 
other  narrative  sections,  should  be  mentioned ;  first,  The 
chronological  error  in  ch.  i.,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  took  Jerusa- 
lem as  king  of  Babylon  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  while 
it  is  known  from  Jeremiah  xxv.  1,  that  the  former  did  not 
begin  to  reign  in  Babylon  until  the  fourth  year  of  the  latter, 
and  that  the  Babylonians  in  the  ninth  month  of  the  fifth  year 
of  Jehoiakim  had  not  yet  come  to  Jerusalem.  (From  Jeremiah 
\\.\vi.  9,  29 ;  see  Bleek,  op.  cit..  427).  The  origin  of  this  error 
has  been  traced  to  a  false  combination  of  2  Chron.  xxxvi. 
(\f.  and  2  Kings,  xxiv.  1.  (See  Kamphausen,  'Das  Buch 
Daniel  und  die  neuere  Geschichtsforschung,'  p.  17).  Second, 
The  statement  in  ch.  ii.  1,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  had  his 
famous  dream  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign,  is  in  direct 

3  For  the  evident  lateness  of  the  second  part  of  the  book,  cf.  Bleek, 
'  Einleitung,''  p.  420  ;  Strack,  Herzog  and  Plitt's  '  Real  Encyclopaedic,' 
vii2.  419  :  Hoffmann,  'Antiochus,'  iv.  pp.  82  ff  ;  Driver,  '  Introduction  to 
tin-  Study  of  Old  Testament  Literature, '_p.  461.     It  has.been  remarked 
that  the  contents  of  ch.  ix,  referring  to  Jerusalem,  would  remove  all 
I  in) her  doubt  as  to  the  late  origin.      (See  Derenbourg,  Hebraica,  iv.  8, 
note  1.) 

4  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  as  early  as  A.D.  1757,  Goebel,  '  De 
Belsasaro,'  (see  Reuss,  *  Geschichte,'  p.  602),  called  attention  to  this  his- 
torical  error.     Reuss  mentions  also  Sartorius,    'Hist.    Excid.    Babyl.' 
(Tiibingrn,  1766);  Norberg,  Opp.  iii.  222. 


23 

contradiction  to  ch.  i.  where  it  is  asserted  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
was  king  when  Daniel  and  his  companions  were  taken  into 
captivity  and  that  the  latter  were  trained  three  years  at  court. 
The  interpretation  of  the  dream  must  have  taken  place  after 
this  period  of  three  years,  and  consequently  later  than  the 
second  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

An  additional  evidence  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  must  have 
been  written  at  a  considerably  later  period  than  the  Persian  con- 
<|iK-stof  Babylon  may  be  found  in  the  presence'  of  both  Persian 
and  Greek  loanwords.  The  occurrence  of  the  former  shows  con- 
clusively that  the  book  must  have  originated  after  the  conquest 
of  Babylon,6  while  the  proeiice  of  Greek  words  appears  to 
preclude  the  possibility  of  setting  the  origin  of  the  work  prior 
to  the  time  of  Alexander  the  (treat.  The  names  of  the  three 
musical  instruments  in  chapter  iii  ;  fT<33*J1D  ,  ver>e  :>.  \:>  (also 
v.  10  in  the  form  nO*3'D),  prODl)  »»»!  D"Wp°  are  undoubt- 
edly loanwords  from  the  Greek  av^wvla,  "fya\rr)piov  and 


It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  these  three  e»«  ntially  Greek 
names  of  musical  instruments  were  current  at  the  court  of 
Nebuchadnezzar.  \Vhile  there  was  in  all  likelihood  some 
intercourse,  even  at  that  time,  between  the  A-iatics  and  the 
lonians  in  Asia  Minor,  it  does  not  seem  probable  that  the 
influence  was  then  strong  enough  to  cause  the  adoption  by  the 
Babylonians  of  Greek  mu>ical  instrument-  and  even  of  their 
Greek  names.  In  Assyrian  literature  the  first  mention  of  the 
lonians  occurs  in  the  inscriptions  of  Sar^oii  (7i^-7nr»  \*>.  <1.) 
who  relates  that  lie  conquered  the  'YfUtnu'i'  who  yl  welt  'in  the 

6  The  theory  advanced  by  Strack  in  Zockler's  '  Handbuch,'  i.  165.  and 
'  Real  Encycl/,  vii.-  419,  that  the  occurrence  of  Persian  loanwords  nec- 
essarily points  to  a  pre-Maccabaean  origin  for  tliese  sections  docs  not 
seem  tenable.  It  is  ijuitc  conceivable  that  Persian  loanwords  sliould 
have  remained  until  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphancs.  For  tlie  opin- 
ion that  the  origin  of  the  book  of  Daniel  must  be  pre-Maccabaean  see 
Additional  Note  B. 

6  For  the  termination   -os  in    Hebrew,   compare  Ges.    'Thesaurus." 


7  (  'ompare  in  this  connection  Cheyne,  '  Encycl.  Britannica,'  vi.  MOM, 
v"l  :  Driver,  'Introduction,'  470.  Derenbourg,  Hebraica.  ii.  pp.  Iff. 
It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  ^a/rit^n,v  was  a  favorite  instrument 
Of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  (See  Polyluns  :  .  \tln-naeiis.  \.  52.) 


24 

midst  of  the  sea.'  Abydenus  in  Eusebius  (Chronico-H,  ed. 
Schoene,  i.  1.  35)  tells  of  Sargon's  successor  (Sennacherib  that 
he  conquered  the  fleet  of  the  Greeks  on  the  Cilician  coast : 
'  In  maris  litore  terrae  Cilicum  classem  navali  proelio  cer- 
tantem  navium  Grsecorum  profligans  vicit.'  Sennacherib 
himself  relates  that  he  manned  his  ships  with  '  maldxe 
("a£urrd,  "l£idund,  m^lt  YamndJ  i.  e.  '  with  Tyrian,  Sidonian 
and  Ionian  sailors.'  (Semi.  Smith,  1.  91.)  Neither  in  the 
later  Assyrian  nor  in  the  Babylonian  inscriptions  does  any 
further  allusion  to  the  Greeks  occur.  In  fact  not  until 
the  time  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  two  hundred  years  later  do 
we  hear  anything  more  of  them.  This  king  speaks  frequently 
of  a  t  m^  Ydmanu^  evidently  referring,  not  to  Greece  proper 
but  to  the  Greek  territory  in  Asia  Minor.  (See  in  this 
connection  Delitzsch  Wo  lag  das  ParadiesJ  pp.  248  if.,  and 
Schrader  Keilinschriften  und  das  alte  Testament,  81-82). 
In  view  of  the  absolute  silence  of  the  Babylonian  inscriptions, 
it  may  be  inferred  that  the  Greek  influence,  later  so  powerful 
had  not  yet  begun  to  make  itself  perceptible  in  the  East. 
With  regard  to  the  opinion  of  Praetorius  in  his  review  of 
Delitzsch,  '  Hebrew  and  Assyrian,'  in  Kuhn's  Literatwrblatt 
fur  orientaliscJie  Philologie,  i.  195,  that  perhaps  centuries 
before  Asurbanipal  a  loanword  from  the  non-Semitic  languages 
of  anterior  Asia  may  have  crept  into  the  idioms  of  the  Assy- 
rians, Hebrews,  Aramaeans  and  even  of  the  non-Semitic  Sumer- 
ians,  it  seems  to  me  difficult  to  come  to  any  definite  conclusion. 
It  appears  equally  possible  to  consider  the  Assyrian  pilai/</-n 
axe  (the  word  in  question)  either  as  a  loanword  from  the 
Greek  TreXe/cu?  according  to  this  suggestion,8  or  to  suppose 
that  the  word  is  original  in  Semitic  and  crept  into  the  Indo- 
Germanic  languages  at  a  very  early  date,  perhaps  even  before 
they  differentiated.  (So  Lehmann  '  Samassumukin'  p.  127, 
who  believes  that  the  word  is  from  the  Sumerian  W^(f/)). 
At  Jiny  rate  this  word  certainly  gives  no  assistance  towards 
determining  the  period  when  Greeks  and  Semites  first  met. 

8  Both  Frankel  and  Prsetorius  hold  this  opinion.  Compare  also 
Lagarde  '(ics.  AMiandl.',  49.  10.,  Haupt  '  Sumerischc  FiiiniliniLi.osetze,' 
55,  n.  5.  DelifczKch  ' Assyrisrlu>  Studicii/  18;?—  nil  quoted  M.-iupt. 
•  Bcitni-<v  i.171  n. 


25 

The  object  of  the  author  of  the  .Hook  of  Daniel,  in  both 
the  apocalyptic  and  narrative  portions  of  the  work,  appears  to 
he  to  comfort  his  oppressed  people,  demonstrating  in  the  one  case, 
hv  means  of  prophetic  vision.-,  the  nearness  of  their  salvation 
and  showing  in  the  narrative  sections  by  means  of  carefully 
arranged  tales  the  inevitable  overthrow  of  blasphemers  against 
<iod.  The  stories  of  the  tiery  furnace  and  the  linn's  den  are 
both  excellent  illustrations  of  the  divine  protection  of  the 
faithful  during  the  pagan  per>ecution.  while  in  the  account  of 
the  lycanthropy  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  chapter  iv.  the  author 
seem.-  to  have  had  the  intention  of  holding  up  the  fate  of  the 
mighty  Babylonian  prince  who  had  destroyed  Jerusalem  and 
the  Temple,  as  a  warning  to  Antiochu>  Kpiphanes  to  desist  in 
time  from  his  blasphemous  opposition  to  the  King  of  Kings. 

To  proceed,  however,  more  e.-pecially  to  the  fifth  chapter. 
As  has  been  mentioned  above,  it  must  be  admitted  that  this 
section,  which  is  the  Hiblical  record  of  the  fall  of  the  Babylon- 
ian dyna.-ty,  cnntains  certain  striking  inaccuracies.  As  will 
be  -cen  subsequently,  however,  in  spite  of  the  manifest  errors 
of  the  writer,  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  account  may  have 
an  historical  background. 

The  chief  inaccuracies  of  chapter  v.  of  which  a  brief  dis- 
cussinn  will  be  necessary  are  three  in  number: 

A.  The  last  kinir  of  Habylnn  is  called  Helshazzar  (a  name, 
occurring  only  in  Daniel  and  in  the  apocryphal  pa»age,  Baruch 
i.  11),  and  it  is  clearly  stated  that  he  was  the  son  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar. 

H.  The  (pieen  mother  is  introduced  at  a  t'ea-t  on  the  eve  of 
the  fall  of  Babylon. 

('.  Ir  is  -tatrd  (v.  :5h  that  a  Median  king,  Darius,  received 
the  kingdom  after  the  fall  of  the  native  Babylonian  house. 

The  first  point  which  should  receive  attention  is  the  errone- 
ous statement  regarding  BeWiazzar.  The  name  Belshazzar, 
previou.-  to  the  discovery  of  the  inscriptions  was  held  to  have 
been  invented  by  the  author  of  Daniel.  (So  Von  Lengerke, 
'2(>4(  Ilitzig.  T.').  It  is  now  gem-rally  admitted,  however, 
to  be  identical  with  the  Babylonian  form  /it  /.^//->/r>/r  which 


26 

has  bmi  discovered  in  the  cuneiform  documents9  as  the  name 
of  the  eldest  son  of  Nabonidus,  the  last  king  of  Babylon.10 
Among  the  various  allusions  to  this  prince  in  the  cuneiform 
literature,  the  most  important  are  those  in  the  two  inscriptions 
of  LTr,  and  in  the  annals  of  Nabonidus,  the  chief  document 
relating  to  the  fall  of  Babylon.  As  the  reference  in  the  small 
inscription11  of  Ur  is  the  most  complete  and  consequently  the 
most  important,  I  append  a  translation  and  transcription.  In 
this  document  Nabonidus  speaks  as  follows : 
Balatu  sa  ume  miquti  Life  for  long  days 

ana  siriqti  s'urqdm  give  as  a  gift  to  me 

u  Sa  Belsarugiir  and  cause  to  dwell 

maru  restu  in  the  heart  of  Belsliazzar 

git  libbiya  my  first  born  son, 

puluxti  ilutika  rabiti  the  offspring  of  my  body, 

libbus  suskinma  reverence  for   thy  great  God- 

d  irsd  head.     May  he  ne'er  incline 

xiteti  to  sin, 

lale  baldtu  lisbi.  may  he  be  filled  with  the 

fulness  of  life. 

In  the  second  column  of  the  great  inscription  of  Ur,12  the 
king,  after  describing  the  restoration  of  the  temple  of  El><iri'<i 

9  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson  in  the  Athenceum.  March,  1854,  p.  341,  'A  letter 
from  Bagdad.'    See  also  Oppert,  ZDMG,  viii.  598. 

10  The  name  occurs  in  the  inscriptions  as  that  of  probably  two  other 
persons  :   (a)  In  '  Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek,'  ii.  60,  I.  59,  where  the 
ruler  of  the  city  of  the  Kisesi,  one  of  the  tribes  conquered  by  Sargon,  is 
called  Belsarugur.     (b)  The  Belsarugur  son  of  Balatu  mentioned  by 
Pinches  in  the  New  York  Independent,  1889,  Aug.  15,  is  probably  not, 
as  he  thinks,  the  son  of  Nabonidus  but  of  some  ordinary  person,  possi- 
bly of  some  one  named  after  the  king's  son  (?).     For  the  proper  name 
Balatu,  see  Peiser  '  Babylonische  Vertrage,'  A7o.  ix.  I.  2.     (Ztschr.  fur 
Assyriologie,  vii.  66,  I.  2.) 

11  Text,  IR.  68,  col.  ii.  22-23,  and  Winckler's  '  Keilschrifttexte,'  p.  43. 
Translation.  Journal  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  xix.  (1861),  195 /.; 
repeated  also,  'Records  of  the  Past,'  v.  143 ff.,  Talbot :  Oppert,  'Expe- 
dition en  Mesopotamie,'  i.  262. 

12 '  Keilinschriftliche  Bibl.'  iii.  pt.  2,  p.  82.  Bettan«;nr  tndru  restu 
.  .  .  $t  (9)  libbiya  suriku  umeZu,  a  irsd  xiteti,  '  Belshazzar  my  first 
born  .  .  .  the  offspring  of  my  body,  make  long  his  days,  may  he  not 
incline  to  sin.'  Peiser  transcribes  in  the  'Keilinschriftliche  Biblio- 
t  h«-k  '  .  .  .  lu  (?)  ux  bi  a  =  tft  (?)  libbiya. 


27 

and  offering  a  devout  petition  to  Samas,  the  sun-god,  that  the 
sacred  shrines  may  now  remain  uninjured,  closes  with  a  prayer 
for  his  own  well  being  and  with  a  supplication  for  BelSa/ruqwr 
his  first-born  in  almost  the  same  words  as  the  above.  Why 
this  especial  mention  of  the  king's  son  occurs  in  these  inscrip- 
tions of  Ur  is  doubtful.  It  may  be  conjectured  with  Tiele 
(' Geschichte,'  463)  that  Bd*<i i'u<-u ,>  was  governor  of  this 
province  in  Southern  Babylonia  and  had  Ur  as  his  capital,  or 
it  is  possible  that  Xabonidus  attached  some  special  religious 
importance  to  the  cult  of  the  moon-god  local  in  this  place. 
The  petition  here  that  the  kind's  son  might  not  incline  to  sin 
may  perhaps  indicate  that  the  prince  had  in  some  way  offended 
the  prejudices  of  the  religious  classes,  who,  as  is  well  known, 
supervised  the  preparation  of  the  inscriptions.  From  the 
allusion  to  the  prince  in  the  annals"  of  Xaboiiidus  it  appears 
that  the  son  of  the  king  was  a  number  of  years  with  the  lords 
and  army  in  A.kkad,  most  probably  in  the  capacity  of  com- 
mander in  chief,  while  his  father  was  residing  in  Tenia  free 
from  the  cares  of  government.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  here 
that  in  the  annals  the  name  BelSarUQUT  does  not  occur,  the 
allusion  being  merely  to  the  -son  of  the  king';  but  there  can 
be  little  doubt  that  the  reference  is  to  the  tirst-born. 

In  addition  to  these  three  pa^>age>  from  the  historical  litera- 
ture, there  are  numbers  of  references  to  BelZarugur  in  the 
contract  tablets,  none  of  which,  however,  throw  any  further 
important  historical  light  on  hi>  character.'" 

A-  /A/x,//-//r///-  i>  the  only  king's  son  mentioned  with  such 
prominence  in  the  Babylonian  inscriptions,11  and  as  it  is  espe- 

13  Annals,  col.  ii.  5,  during  the  seventh  year  of  Nabonidus,  col.  2.  10, 
during  the  10th  year.     See  also  col.  ii.  19  and  v!:5. 

14  Compare,  however,  Nbpl.   col.  ii.  69,  '  Keilinscbrif  tl.   Bibl.'  iii.  pt. 
2,  4,  mention  of  Nebuchadnrz/ar  :  and  col.  iii.  §ff-  of  Xdhitxitlixir,  his 
brother.   In  later  documents  mention  is  made  of  Cainbyses,  son  of  Cyrus, 
as  co-regent  and  king  of  Babylon  during  his  father's  lifetime.    (Sec  Tiele 
4  Geschichtu,'  483,  484.)    In  the  inscription  of  Antiochus  Soter,  VR.  66, 
2."i,  ('  Keilinschr.  Bibl.',  iii.  pt.  2,  188,  25),  mention  is  made  of  Seleucus, 
his  son  and  vice-king.     Delattre,  '  Solomon,  Asurbanipal  et  Baltasar,' 
1883,  p.  5,  compares  in  connection  with  BelSarugur  the  cases  of  Solo- 
mon and  Sardanapalus,  both  of  whom  exercised  the  vice-regal  dignity 
during  the  life  of  their  respective  fathers. 

*See  additional  note  C. 


ciully  stated  that  the  lords  of  the  kingdom  and  army  were  with 
him  (probably  under  his  supervision)  in  Akkad,  it  seems  highly 
probable  that  he  was  a  very  important  personage  in  the  govern- 
ment, a  theory  which  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  his 
father,  Nabonidus,  was  more  of  an  archaeologist  than  a  ruler, 
and  far  more  interested  in  the  discovery  of  a  forgotten  site 
than  in  the  affairs  of  his  kingdom.  Bel&arugur,  therefore, 
as  some  critics  have  argued,15  may  have  really  been  co- 
regent  ;  but,  as  will  be  seen  subsequently,  the  author  of  the 
Book  of  Daniel  could  not,  as  they  thought,  have  had  this  idea 
in  mind  in  calling  him  king  of  Babylon. 

Comparing  the  Belsamtgur  of  the  inscriptions  with  Belshaz- 
zar  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  the  following  important  differences 
are  apparent.  The  former  was  the  son  of  the  last  king  of  Baby- 
lon, but  never  reigned  except  possibly  as  co-regent,  while  the 
latter  is  distinctly  called  the  last  king  and  the  son  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar. There  can  be  little  doubt  that  both  of  these  statements 
were  made  by  the  author  of  Daniel  in  perfect  good  faith.  A 
number  of  commentators16  have  sought  to  prove  that  the  Belshaz- 
zar  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  not  necessarily  meant  by  the 
author  as  the  last  king  of  Babylon,  but  was  intended  for  Evil- 
nierodach,  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar ;  a  view  advanced  in  support 
of  the  statement  in  verse  2,  that  Belshazzar  was  the  son  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar. Following  this  theory,  some  considered  Belshazzar 
merely  a  secondary  name.  (So  Ziindel  '  Daniel,'  26  ;  Niebuhr 
'  Greschichte,'  30,  etc.)  It  is  difficult  to  understand,  however, 

15  Floigl,  'Cyrus  und  Herodot,'  24;  Andrea,    '  Beweis  des  Glaubeni?.' 
1888,  p.  249  ;  Smith  in  the  '  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  ;'  Meinhold,  <  Disser- 
tation,' 30,  n.  2,  etc. 

16  So  Marsham,   'Canon  chron.,'  596^.;  Conring,   '  Advers.  Chron.' 
c.  13  ;  Harenberg,  k  Dan.'  ii.  pp.  454  ff.;  Hofmann,  '  Die  siebenzig  Jahre 
des  Jeremia  und  die  siebenzig  Jahrwochen  des  Daniel,'  p.  44  ;  Haver- 
nick,    '  Neue    kritische    Untersuchungen,'  pp.   72 ff.',  M.    v.   Niebuhr, 
'  Geschichte  Assurs  und  Babels,'  p.  42.;  Wolff  in  the  '  Studien  und  Krit- 
iken,'  1858,  p.  684  note  a.;  Ziindel,  '  Daniel,'  33  ;  Unger,  '  Kyaxares  und 
Astyages,'  pp.  28,  29.     Keil,  'Dan.'  145,  although  knowing  of  the  dis- 
covery of  the  name  in  the  inscriptions  thought  that  the  Bel^arn^iir, 
son  of  Nabonidus,  of  the  inscriptions  must  have  been  named  after  Bel- 
shazzar-Evilmerodach   son   of   Nebuchadnezzar !    Quatreniere    in    his 
'  Annales  de  la  philosophic  chretienne,'  1838,  (Migne,  '  Die.  de  la  Bible,' 
ii.  j>.  :'.<>,  note,  ls.|5).  advanced  the  theory  in  support  of  Jeremiah  xxvii. 
7,  that    Naltonidus.  as  an    usurper,  associated  with  himself   lielsh:i//:ir. 


how  the  author  could  make  Daniel  declare  to  the  Babylonian 
monarch  that  ///*  kingdom  was  about  to  pass  to  the  Medes  and 
Persians,  unless  the  prophecy  were  intended  for  the  last  king. 
There  would  be  little  point  in  such  a  warning,  if  it  were  given 
a  generation  before  its  actual  fulfillment.  AYe  may  compare 
in  this  connection  the  indifference  of  Hezekiah  to  the  prophecy 
of  Isaiah  of  the  ultimate  deportation  to  .Babylon  and  degra- 
dation there  of  all  the  Jewish  royal  family.  In  Isaiah  xxxix. 
8,  He/ekiah  said  :  "(rood  is  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  thou 
hast  spoken  .  .  .  for  there  shall  be  peace  and  truth  in  ///// 
days."  In  addition  to  this  it  is  evident  that  if  the  author  of 
Daniel  did  not  really  regard  his  BeUhax/ar  as  the  last  king  of 
Babylon,  but  as  Evilmerodach,  he  must  have  omitted  without 
mention  a  period  of  twenty  years  between  the  death  of  the  latter 
and  the  foreign  supremacy;  i.e.  that  between  the  two  contigu- 
ous and  cl<»ely  related  statements  of  the  death  of  Belsha//ar  and 
the  accession  of  Darius  the  Median,  the  reigns  of  several  kings 
were  pa»ed  over  in  silence.  That  an  author  should  do  this 
knowingly  without  a  word  of  explanation,  as  sonic  writers  have 
sought  to  show.  Seems  a  preposterous  >iippo>itioii.'7  It  appears 
perfectly  clear  that  the  Biblical  author  regarded  Belshax/ar  as 
the  la*t  king  of  Babylon  before  the  coming  of  the  Medes  and 
Persians. 

son  of  Evilmerodach   and  grandson    of    Nebuchadnezzar,   in  order  to 

strengthen  his  position.  The  view  that  Belsha/./ar  and  Nahonidus 
weiv  identical  was  held  by  Josephns  (Antt.,  \.  11.  '2*.  where  he  states 
that  'Bnltasar'  was  railed  •  Xaboandelns  '  by  the  Babylonians.  (Cf. 
also  'Contra  Apionem.'  i.  <•.  20).  This  idea  was  followed  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis  -Daniel,'  46;  Bertholdt,  'Daniel/  :544  :  Bleek,  Kirms,  Heng- 
st  en  berg.  Havernick,  'Daniel.'  p.  172:  Kwald  •  <  Ji-srli.'.  v.  <S5,  note; 
Herzfeld,  'Gesch.',  i.  Io4  :  Browne,  '  Ordo  Saecloruin,'  l<s. 

Sulpitius  Sevems.  -Hist.",  ii.  6,  considered  Belshazzar  a  younger 
brother  of  Evilmerodach.  both  being  sons  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

Scaliger  (see  '  Isagogicoriini  chronologiffl  canonum  libri  tres.',  iii. 
}i.  190,)  and  Calvisius,  who  were  followed  by  Ebrard,  '  Comm.  zur  Offen- 
baruiig  Johannis/  \^.  and  Delitzscli  'Real  Encycl.',  iii.'M72,  identitied 
him  with  Laborosoarchod  (Ldba&imarduk),  son  of  Neriglissar. 

11  (.;/'.  Ziindel  and  Kranichfeld  'Dan/,  25,  28,  who  believed  that  Bel- 
shazzar was  Evilmerodach.  and  explained  this  silence  regarding  the 
intervening  period  and  the  connection  of  two  statements  so  far  apart, 
by  supposing  that  they  were  brought  together  because  the  latter  was 
the  sequence  of  the  former  ! 


As  remarked  above,  certain  critics  have  held  the  view 
that  because  /i<-l#<ii-nrnt'  may  have  been  co-regent  with  his 
father,  the  Biblical  writer,  knowing  this,  gave  his  Belshazzar 
the  title  of  king.  A  conclusive  answer  to  this  has  been  given 
bv  Professor  Driver,  'Introduction,'3  xxii.,  where  he  states 
that  there  are  certain  contract  tablets  published  by  Strassmaier 
and  bearing  date  continuously  from  the  reign  of  Nabonidus  to 
that  of  Cyrus,  which  show  that  neither  Belshazzar  nor  Darius 
the  Mede  (supposing  the  latter  to  have  been  historical)  could 
have  received  the  title  of  king  in  any  capacity  whatsoever. 
If  Belshazzar  really  had  been  co-regent,  however,  we  would 
not  expect  to  find  him  with  the  unqualified  title  'King  of 
Babylon  '  without  any  further  explanation.  Cambyses,  the  son 
of  Cyrus,  was  undoubtedly  co-regent  and  bore  the  title  King  of 
Babylon  during  his  father's  life-time,  tut  in  the  contract  which 
dates  from  his  first  year  it  is  expressly  stated  that  Cyrus  was 
still  '  king  of  the  lands.'  This  statement  should  be  contrasted 
with  Dan.  viii.  1,  where  reference  is  made  to  the  third  year 
of  'Belshazzar,  King  of  Babylon,'  without  any  mention  of 
another  over-ruler.  Had  the  author  of  Daniel  really  believed 
that  Belshazzar  was  co-regent  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  he  would  in  some  way  have  qualified  the  title  '  King 
of  Babylon.' 

Furthermore  the  statement  that  Belshazzar  was  the  son  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  shows  conclusively  that  the  historical  knowl- 
edge of  the  author  of  Daniel  was  considerably  at  fault.  Certain 
commentators  have  endeavored  to  prove  that  this  statement  may 
be  in  accordance  with  the  facts,  i.  e.  that  '  son '  here  is  to  be  trans- 
lated '  descendant '  or '  grandson.'  It  is  of  course  perfectly  true, 
as  I  )r.  Pusey  has  remarked,  that  DN  and  p  (Aramaic  *U)  are 
used,  not  only  of  the  actual  father  and  son,  but  also  of  the  grand- 
father or  grandson,  and  ancestor  or  descendant  in  general.1" 
The  way,  however,  in  which  Nebuchadnezzar  is  referred  to 
in  the  fifth  chapter  shows  plainly  that  the  author  could  have 
had  no  knowledge  of  the  intervening  kings,  but  considered 

•  •mpare  Pusey,  'Daniel,'  p.   346.     There    is  no  distinctive   word 
Hebrew  or  Aramaean  for  grandfather  or  grandson.     In  later 


.",1 

Nebuchadnezzar  as  the  actual  father  of  Belsha//ar.  In  the 
tfit'*f  place,  tlie  narrative  of  chapter  v.  follows  directly  on  the 
chapters  concerning  Nebuchadnezzar  and  begins  with  the  un- 
qualified assertion  that  Belshazzar  was  the  son  of  that  monarch  ; 
and  ,sv/v>/^////,  the  remark  of  Belsha/zar  in  v.  13,  'so  thou  art 
Daniel  ....  whom  the  king  my  father  brought  from  Jiuhea,1 
would  be  ambiguous  if  the  king  were  referring  to  his  grand- 
father or  an  ancestor.  In  this  case  we  would  expect  the  repe- 
tition of  the  name  Nebuchadnezzar  to  indicate  to  which  'father' 
the  king  was  alluding.  But  even  if  the  words  *  father'  and 
'son'  of  the  fifth  chapter  really  were  u>ed  for  'grandson'  and 
'grandfather,'  there  is  no  proof  that  I><l*<i  I-HCU  r  was  in  any  way 
related  to  Nebuchadnezzar.19  Nahunidus.  his  father,  was  the  son 
of  a  nobleman.  No&ubalatsuiqbi  (see  '  Keilinschr.  Bibl.'  iii.  jrf. 
'2.  IMJj  I.  6),  and  was  probably  a  leader  in  the  conspiracy  against 
his  predecessor.  Ijilmxi- M<i r<l »L'.  'As  far  as  is  known,  he  was 
not  related  to  any  of  the  preceding  kings.  Had  Xabonidus 
been  descended  from  Nebuchadnezzar  he  could  hardly  have 
failed  to  boast  of  such  a  connection  with  the  greatest  IJabylo- 
nian  monarch,  yet  in  none  of  his  inscriptions  does  he  trace  his 
descent  beyond  his  father.  Some  scholars  have  tried  to  ob- 
viate the  difficulty  by  suppo>ino-  that  Xabonidus,  in  order  to 
strengthen  his  dynasty,  married  a  daughter  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
and  that  in  this  way  BelSarugUT  was  the  great  king's  grandson, 
a  theory  which  in  the  absence  <>f  record>  cannot  possibly  be 
proved. 

19Auberlen.  •  D;iiii(  1.'  i>.  ir>.  thought  that  Belshaczar  was  called  son  of 

Nebuchadnezzar,  just  as  Oinri  was  considered  by  the  Assyrians  as 
father  of  the  house  of  Israel.  '  Father."  however,  cannot  be  used  of 
the  unrelated,  predecessors,  as  I'n^ry  i  Daniel.  :54?i  sought  to  show. 
\Vh.-re\er  it  is  used  in  this  connection,  as  in  the  above  riled  case,  it  is 
an  error  as  to  the  real  relationship.  The  passagi-  in  Sargon  which 
Pusey  cites  in  support  of  his  view,  believing  that  Sargon  was  no  rela- 
tion to  the  preceding  kings,  is  very  doubtful,  and  probably  does  not 
contain  the  words  x<trni  <tln'i/<i.  -the  king,  my  father.'  Cf.  Winckler's 
•  Sargon,'  ii..  xiii.,  but  also  Tiele  '  Gesch.',  254,  255,  rem.  2. 

ote  that  Bertholdt,  'Daniel'  344,  Bleek,  Kirms,  Havernick, 
'Untersuch.7  72,  Hitzig,  'Dan.',  73,  Srhrader  '  Jahrbuch  fur  Prot.  The- 
ologie,' vii.  629,  are  all  agreed  that  the  author  considered  Belshazzar 
the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 


Tlu1  similarity  of  name  and  the  facts,  p'rxf,  that  the  historical 
I  Id  *<i  i>  ur  HI'  of  tlie  inscriptions  was  the  son  of  the  last  king  of 
IJabylon,  wliile  the  Belshazzarof  Daniel  is  represented  as  being 
himself  the  last  king,  and,  wiHu'lly,  that  it  has  been  established 
quite  lately,  as  will  be  seen  below,  that  Belsarugur,  son  of  Na- 
bonidus,  probably  met  his  death  at  the  time  of  the  capture  of 
Uabylon,  in  partial  agreement  with  the  Biblical  account  con- 
cerning Belshazzar,  prove  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  the 
son  of  Nabonidus  is  the  original  of  the  king  in  the  Biblical 
account.'21 

The  first  historical  inaccuracy  of  the  fifth  chapter  is,  there- 
fore, the  erroneous  statement  concerning  the  name  and  ances- 
try of  the  last  king  of  Babylon.  It  should  be  remembered 
that  the  value  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  which  nowhere  pretends 
to  be  an  accurate  account,  but  is  rather  a  political  pamphlet 
written  with  a  certain  object  in  view,  is  by  no  means  impaired 
by  this  inexact  treatment  of  history.  The  force  of  the  story 
would  have  been  materially  weakened  had  the  author  known 
and  made  use  of  the  names  of  the  kings  intervening  between 
Nebuchadnezzar  and  the  last  king.  The  whole  point  of  the 
fifth  chapter,  as  brought  out  in  the  mysterious  sentence,  is  a 
comparison  between  the  great  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  real  founder 
of  the  Babylonian  monarchy ;  the  insignificant  last  king  who 
had  allowed  the  reins  of  government  to  slip  from  his  feeble 
hands ;  and  the  coming  stranger  people  who  should  divide 
between  them  the  empire  of  Nebuchadnezzar.. 

The  second  inacuracy  of  the  author  in  the  fifth  chapter  of 
Daniel  which  should  be  noticed  at  this  point,  is  his  introduc- 
tion of  the  queen-mother,  i.  e.  the  mother  of  Nabonidus,  into 
the  story.  According  to  verse  10  the  queen  entered  the  hall 
and  suggested  that  the  Jewish  prophet  Daniel  be  called  to 

21  Talbot.  '  Records  of  the  Past,'  v.  143,  doubts  the  identity  of  the  Bib- 
lical Belshazzar  with  the  BeUaru^nr  of  the  inscriptions,  supposing  that 
the  account  in  Daniel  is  told  of  some  other  person  with  this  name, 
\\hich  he  asserts  to  be  a  common  one.  As  the  name  Bel^triirur  occurs 
only  twice  in  the  published  inscriptions  of  another  than  the  son  of 
Nabonidus  (see  above  note  10  to  this  chapter),  until  the  hypothetical 
'other  person"  be  discovered  it  is  certainly  consistent  with  good  judg- 
ment in  view  ol  the  reasons  just  given  to  regard  Hi-lsttrncin'  son  of 
Nabonidus  and  the  Belsha/zar  of  Daniel  as  identical. 


33 

interpret  the  mysterious  writing.  There  can  he  little  doubt 
that  the  author  was  referring  to  the  (jiieen-dowager,  the  mother 
of  the  last  king  of  Babylon.  The  mother  of  Nabonidus,  how- 
ever, died  in  the  ninth  year  of  his  reign  (see  Annals,  col.  ii.  13), 
just  eight  years  before  the  occupation  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus,  so 
that  her  presence  at  a  feast  held  towards  the  close  of  the  reign 
of  Nabonidus  would  be  clearly  impossible.  It  might  be  argued 
that  the  reference  in  ch.  v.  may  be  to  the  wife  of  Xabonidus, 
the  mother  of  BelSarugur,  but,  as  we  have  seen,  there  is  little 
doubt  that  the  author  of  Daniel  regarded  Pelshazzar  (K<-lxui'n- 
<•"/•}  as  actually  king  and  knew  nothing  of  Nabonidus;  so  it 
seems  only  possible  to  assert  that  he  considered  the  queen 
alluded  to  in  this  verse  as  the  mother  of  the  reigning  monarch. 

The  /////v/and  last  historical  inaccuracy  of  the  fifth  chapter 
of  Daniel  is  the  assertion  in  verse  -U  that  a  Median  King- 
Darius  "  received  the  kingdom  "  after  the  end  of  the  native 
IJahylonian  dynasty.  It  is  well  known  that  Habylon  was  cap- 
tured by  Cyrus  the  Persian,  who.  some  time  previously,  had 
obtained  possession  of  Media  and  its  King  Astyages.  It  is  evi- 
dent too.  from  Daniel  i.  *1\  ;  x.  I,  that  the  Biblical  writer  \vas 
perfectly  aware  of  the  existence  of  (  'yrns.  I'Yom  his  introduc- 
tion of  a  Median  Darius  directly  after  the  fall  of  Pelshaz/ar;  it 
must  be  concluded  that  the  author  of  the  IJook  of  Daniel 
believed  in  the  existence  of  a  Median  king  between  the  Baby- 
lonian and  Persian  dynastic>. 

The  fact  that  in  no  other  scriptural  passage"  is  mention 
made  of  any  Median  ruler  between  the  last  king  of  Babylon 
and  Cyrus,  and  the  absolute  silence  of  the  most  authoritative 
ancient  authors  regarding  such  a  king,  have  cast  serious  doubt 
on  the  accuracy  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  in  this  particular. 
Various  attempts  have  been  made,  however,  to  vindicate  the 
historical  character  of  this  Darius  the  Median.""  The  opinion 

-- See  Isaiah,  xliv.  ff.  Compare  also  the  legend  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon, 
I.  and  the  Greek  translations  (LXX  ;md  Theodotion)  of  Dan.  xi.  1, 
where  the  name  Cyrus  is  Mihstit  nted  for  that  of  Darius. 

23  Note  in  this  connection  Josephus,  Antt.  x.  11,  4,  followed  by 
Jerome  on  Daniel  v.  1  :  vi.  1.  (Opp.  ed.  Vallarsi.  torn.  v.  651,  657).  Jose- 
phus  stated  that  Babylon  was  captured  by  Darius,  who  was  the  son  of 
. \st\a-vs  and  had  another  name  ainon.u,  the  (Jreeks.  The  following 


has  IK-CM  very  generally  advanced  that  he  was  identical  with 
('ya.xaro.  son  of  Astya<j;es,  mentioned  in  Xenophon's  Cyro- 
jmidia,"  and  in  support  of  this  theory  reference  has  been  made 
to  the  lines  of  ^Kschylus,  Perm,  762-765.  (So  Hitzig,  77; 
Keil,  165.) 

MijSo?  yap  r)V  o  7T/3WT09  rjye/jiGiv  arparov 
"AXXo?  &  eiceivov  Trat?  ro'8'  epyov  rjvvo-e  • 
<&peves  yap  avrov  OVJJLOV  olaKoarpdtyovv. 
T/3tVo9  S'  cur   avTOv  Ku/oo?,  evSal/jLcov  avijp,  K.  T.  X. 

writers  attempted  to  prove  the  historical  character  of  Darius  the  Mede  ; 
Delitzsch,  '  Real  Encyclopadie,'  iii.  ed.  1,  article  *  Daniel ;'  Prideaux, 
'History  of  the  Jews,'  i.  98,  154,  172,  etc.;  Havernick,  'Daniel,'  205; 
Hengstenberg,  '  Daniel,'  48,  327  ;  Kranichfeld,  'Daniel,'  44;  Lengerke, 
'Dan.',  232;  Lenormant,  '  Magie,'  535;  J.  D.  Michselis,  'Dan.',  52; 
Vaihinger,  '  Real-Encycl.',  s.  v.  Darius;  Venema,  '  Historia  Ecclesias- 
tica,'  ii.  pp.  309^.;  Ziindel,  'Dan.',  37.  Compare  also  Jahn  'Biblical 
Archaeology,'  transl.  Upham,  ed.  5,  p.  289  ;  Browne,  '  Ordo  Saeclorum,' 
p.  175  ;  Schulz'  '  Cyrus  der  Grosse,'  Stud,  und  Krit.  1853,  p.  685  ;  Zock- 
ler,  '  Daniel,'  34.  With  regard  to  other  less  important  opinions  as  to 
Darius  the  Median,  some  authorities  considered  him  identical  with 
Astyages.  Among  the  holders  of  this  opinion  is  Syncellus,  '  Chronogr,' 
p.  232,  where  he  said  "Nafiovvqfiog  6  Te'Aevraio^  fiaai7tev(;  M.^6uv,  'Acrvd-yw  Trap' 
avrolf;  %,ey6f4evo£t  6  avrbg  6s  K.OL  Aapeloc;  'Aaaovf/pov.  Cf.  also  Marsham, 
Niebuhr,  etc.,  and  more  lately  Unger,  '  Kyaxares  und  Astyages,'  pp. 
26-28.  Others  sought  to  show  that  Darius  the  Median  was  a  near 
relative  of  Astyages.  Compare  Quatremere,  '  Memoires  sur  Darius  le 
Mede  et  Baltasar,'  380-381,  who  considered  him  Astyages'  nephew. 
Ibn  Ezra  (Hitzig,  '  Daniel,'  76),  (see  IE  on  Dan.  vi.  1)  thought  that  he 
was  the  father-in-law  of  Cyrus.  Klein,  Schulz,  op.  cit.,  684,  and 
Ziindel  regarded  him  as  a  younger  brother  of  Astyages.  Ebrard 
Scheuchzer,  Scaliger,  in  Appendix  of  his  '  De  emend,  temporum '  and 
in  '  Isagogicorum  chronologies  canonum  libri  tres.'  iii.  pp.  291  and  315, 
Petavius,  and  Buddeus,  (see  Zockler,  34)  thought  him  identical  with 
Nabonidus.  Conring,  '  Advers.  Chron.',  c.  13,  Bouhier  'Dissertation 
sur  Herodote,'  29,  Harenberg,  ii.  pp.  434^.,  regarded  him  as  identical 
with  Neriglissar.  Hengstenberg,  *  Daniel,'  328,  identified  him  with 
Bahman,  who  according  to  Persian  tradition  (Mirchond)  dethroned 
Belshazzar  and  appointed  Cyrus  ;  but  cf.  v.  Lengerke,  •  Daniel,'  224#\ 
etc.,  etc. 

24  Cf.  Xen.  Cyrop.,  i.  5,  2.  RpoUvro^  6e  TOV  %p6vov  6  filv  'AcrvdyiK  '£V  T°i<; 
airo&vJjffKei,  o  di-  Kva^dpt^  6  TOV  ' Aarvdyovc  7rdi£,  Tf/£  fit-  Ki'por  //-//r/jof 
,  r//i'  iianiAt-idv  £a%£  TUV  Mrffiuv. 

For  the  opinion  that  Darius  the  Mede  was  identical  with  Cyaxares, 
Bee,  lor  example,  Havernick,  'Dan.',  206;  Keil,  'Dan.',  165;  Kranich- 
fVM,  'Dan.',  44;  Lengerke,  'Dan.',  220;  Ainhv/i,  '  Hcwcis  d.  Glaubens,' 
xxv.  57,  McinhoM  •  Disscrtalioii/  Mft'..  and  others  mentioned  above. 


35 

The  TT/awTO?  rjyefijicov  (rrparov  was  supposed  to  refer  to 
AsryMi-vs,  while  the  "son"  of  the  following  line  was  under- 
stood to  be  the  Cjaxares  mentioned  in  the  Cyropaedia.  As  a 
further  proof  of  identity,  the  age  of  the  Darius  of  Daniel, 
.sixty-two  years,  has  been  cited  as  a  point  of  agreement  with  the 
account  that  Cjaxares,  having  no  hope  of  a  male  heir,  being 
too  old,  gave  Cyrus  his  daughter  and  made  him  his  successor.25 
It  may  be  well  in  this  connection  to  compare  the  data  of  Xen- 
ophon  regarding  the  last  Median  kings  with  those  of  Herodo- 
tus on  the  same  subject.  It  should  be  noticed,  ,///'*,,  that 
Herodotus  ends  the  Median  dynasty  with  Astyages,  while 
Xenophon  adds  a  son,  Cyaxares.  X  mW///,  according  to  Her- 
odotus Cyrus  was  only  related  to  the  Median  house  by  being 
the  son  of  Astyages"  daughter.  Xenophon  adds  to  this  that 
Cyrus  married  the  daughter  of  Cyaxarcs  (his  liist  cousin),  and 
inherited  with  her  the  Median  empire.  77///v/7y,  according  to 
the  account  of  Herodotus,  Cyrus  took  part  in  the  rebellion 
instigated  by  Ilarpa^us  and  con<|iieivd  his  grandfather  Astya- 
ges, capturing  Media.  Herodotus'  account  of  the  conquest  of 
Babylon  contains  no  reference  to  any  Median  prince.  Xeno- 
phon relates,  however,  that  Cyrus,  after  quarreling  with  Cyax- 
aiv>,  became  reconciled  to  him  and  gave  him  royal  honors  after 
the  Babylonian  campaign.  Herodotus,  as  will  lie  seen  from 
the  above,  had  no  knowledge  of  any  Median  king  between 
Astyages  and  Cyrus,  nor  of  any  special  Median  occupation  of 
Babylon,  and  in  this  respect  his  account  i>  substantiated  by  the 
cuneiform  records.  It  should  be  noticed  that  neither  Bcro^sus 
nor  any  other  ancient  author  knows  of  a  Median  rule  after  the 
fall  of  Babylon.1"  In  the  annals  of  Xabonidus  and  the  Cvrns 
Cylinder,  the  two  cuneiform  documents  relating  to  the  fall  of 

25  See  Cyrop. ,  viii.  5, 19  andc/.  Havernick,  '  Dan.',  206.  Some  commen- 
tators who  identified  Xenophoii's  Cyaxares  with  the  Median  Darius, 
explained  the  silence  of  Herodotus  and  other  writers  iv<;;inlm.u- 
Cyaxares  by  supposing  that  the  latter  reigned  too  short  a  time  to  have 
given  his  name  to  history  ;  but  this  does  not  of  course  explain  the 
silence  of  Xenophon  himself  in  the  Anabasis  about  the  fabulous 
Cyaxares. 

126  For  the  account  of  Berossus  see  below,  ch.  3,  p.  46.  Compare  in  this 
connection  Ktesias,  Pers..  ii.  .1  :  IHodonis  Siculus,  ii.  24,  etc. 


36 

,  no  mention  whatever  occurs  of  any  ruler  of  Media 
between  Astyages  and  Cyrus  (cf.  Annals  ii.  1-4  and  note),  nor 
of  any  king  of  Babylon  intervening  between  Nabonidus  and 
( 'vrus.  On  tlie  contrary  it  is  stated  that  Cyrus  became  master 
of  Media  by  conquering  Astyages,  and  that  the  troops  of  the 
Kinu'  of  Persia,  capturing  Babylon,  took  Xabonidus  prisoner. 
( 'yrus  himself  entered  the  city  nine  months  later. 

In  view  of  these  facts  it  is  difficult  to  see  where  an  interme- 
diate reign  can  be  inserted,  either  in  Media,  directly  after 
Astyages,  or  in  Babylonia  after  Nabonidus.  It  should  be  men- 
tioned, moreover,  that  the  Cyaxares  of  the  Cyropaedia  is  not 
recorded  to  have  ruled  in  Babylon,  but  merely  to  have  received 
royal  quarters  in  that  city.  (Cyrop.,  viii.  5,  17.)  An  identifica- 
tion between  Darius  the  Median  and  the  Cyaxares,  son  of  Asty- 
ages, of  Xenophon's  romance,  is,  therefore,  open  to  the  serious 
objection  that  the  existence  of  this  latter  person,  contrary  to 
all  other  accounts,  is  extremely  doubtful.  It  should  be  remem- 
bered that  the  narrative  of  the  Cyropaedia  resembles  the  Book 
of  Daniel  in  that  it  was  not  written  for  an  historical  but  for  a 
moral  purpose.  It  is  enough  to  quote  Cicero,  who  remarked 
(Ail  Qttintumfratrem,  Lib.  i.  1,  8),  "  Cyrus  ille  a  Xenophonte 
noii  ad  historiae  fidem  scriptus  est,  sed  ad  effigiem  justi  imperii." 
It  is  perhaps  a  little  harsh  to  characterize  Xenophon's  work, 
with  Niebuhr  as  an  'elenden  und  lappischen  Roman.'  (' Yor- 
triige  liber  alte  Geschichte,'  i.  116.)  With  respect  to  the  peace- 
ful succession  of  Cyrus  to  the  Median  Empire,  Xenophon,  in 
his  more  historical  work,  the  Anabasis,  iii.  4,  expressly  stated 
that  the  Medes  succumbed  to  the  victorious  arms  of  Cyrus. 
The  Cyropaedia,  therefore,  representing  the  peaceful  passage  of 
the  empire  of  the  East  from  Astyages  to  Cyaxares  his  son,  and 
from  the  latter  to  Cyrus,  can  only  be  giving  some  fanciful  em- 
bell  ishment.27 

'-'"  Some  commentators  in  a  mistaken  effort  to  confirm  the  Biblical 
record  have  deliberately  confounded  the  names  of  Darius,  Cyaxaivs. 
MIM!  Xerxes.  Thus,  Havernick,  'Dan.',  210;  '  Untersuchungen,'  78, 
and  /odder,  'Daniel/  34,  thought  that  Astyages  was  identical  with 
Ahasnerns  ;  juidKeil,  'Dan.',  167,  thought  that  Darius  and  Cyaxares  were 
related  in  meaning.  Hengstenberg,  'Daniel,'  51,  and  Niebuhr,  '  Kleine 
Seln  it'ten/  "2\rt.  believed  in  tlie  identity  of  tlic  names  Cyaxares.  Astyages. 


37 

It  is  probable  that  this  Cyaxares  of  the  Cyropaedia  arose  from 
a  confusion  of  facts.  The  father  of  Astyages  was  the  famous 
Cyaxares,  and  Xenophon,  by  a  confusion  of  history,  must  have 
believed,  when  writing  his  romance,  that  Astyages  preceded 
Cyaxares,  and  that  the  latter  was  the  last  king  of  his  dynasty 
(compare  Delattre,  'Medes/y>.  170).  Even  had  this  fabulous 
second  ( 'vaxares  existed,  however,  an  identification  between  him 
and  Darius  the  Median,  would  be  impossible,  owing  to  the  differ- 
ence of  the  names  of  their  respective  fathers.  The  latter  is 
called  in  chapter  ix.  1,  the  son  of  Ahasuerus  (Xerxes)  a  name 
which  could  never  be  considered  the  same  as  Astyages. 

The  attempt  to  identify,  the  Darius  of  Daniel  with  the  King 
Darius  mentioned  in  the  Armenian  Chronicle  of  Kusebius""  can 
hardly  be  regarded  as  satisfactory.  According  [,,  this  passage 
it  i>  stated  that  after  Cyrus  gave  the  last  king  of  Babylon  the 

province   of  Carmania,  Darius  drove1  out  some  one   from   that 
region;   probably  Xabonidus. 

There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  this  Darius  is  no  other  than 
Darius  llystaspis.  i  Kven  Pusey,  *  Daniel,'  l.V.t,  had  to  admit 
that  this  was  po-sible;  compare  also  Kranichfeld,  '  Daniel/  -l.\ 
v.  Lcr.gerke,  '  Daniel/  '2'2*.)  It  is  possible  that  Xabonidus,  the 
last  king  of  Babylon,  whom  Cyrus  dethroned  in  .V>S  P>.  C.,  and 
according  to  the  record  of  I>ero»u>  (see  below,  note  •">  to  chapter 
third)  sent  to  Carmania,  may  have  remained  in  that  province1 
until  the  time  of  Darius  H\>taspis.  The  Persian  king,  perhaps 
enraged  by  some  attempt  of  Xabonidus  to  rebel,  may  have 
expelled  him  from  his  province  as  the  account  of  Megastlienes 
seems  to  state.  The  idea  can  hardly  he  entertained  that  there 
is  an  allusion  here  to  an  earlier  Darius. 


and  Ahasuerus.  In  his  'Gesch.  Assurs  und  Babels,'  p.  45,  Niebuhr 
confused  the  name  Astyages,  which  lie  considered  as  a  title  of  honor, 
with  Cyaxares  and  Darius.  Von  Lengerke,  'Daniel,'  237,  thought  that 
Cyaxares  and  Ahasuerus  wnv  identical.  Ziindel,  'Daniel,'  36, 
Kranichfeld,  '  Dan.',  46,  Pusey,  '  Dan.',  159,  and  Andrea,  58,  saw  no 
difficulty  in  the  difference  in  name  !  Unger,  '  Kyaxares  and  Astyagcs.' 
29,  thought  like  Niebuhr  that  Darius  was  a  throne  name,  a  sort  of 
title,  etc. 

•e  Armenian  Chronicle,   Ed.  Schoene,   i.  41   (Latin  translation), 
quoting  from  the  .'irrmmt  of  Ahydonus  from  Megasthenes. 


38 

The  argument  based  on  the  authority  of  Suidas  and  Harpo- 
cration,^ that  the  coin  //^/v7',  was  called,  not  after  Darius 
Hystaspis,  as  many  have  supposed,  but  after  an  older  monarch 
of  this  name,  probably  the  Median  Darius  of  Daniel,30  is  also 
in  view  of  modern  researches  extremely  doubtful. 

The  name  of  the  coin,  oapeitcds  (Hebrew  JiD""nN)  has  been 
derived  from  the  name  Darius,31  but  it  is  extremely  probable 
that  there  is  no  connection  linguistically  between  the  two. 
Putting  aside  all  other  difficulties,  the  form  Sa/oettfo?,  if  consid- 
ered an  adjectival  development  from  Aa/oeto?,  has  no  analogy. 
As  Georg  Hoffmann  has  pointed  out,  Zeitschrift  fur  Ass  yr., 
ii.  53,  forms  like  KepapeiKos,  Ei)/3o€//co?  come  from  ice  pa  pew, 
EuySoev?,  etc.,  and  not  from  an  original  -eto?.  The  K  in 
Sapetrcos  he  believes,  therefore,  is  not  of  Greek  origin.3"  The 
derivation,  however,  which  Hoffmann  suggests  (op.  cit.,p.  56) 
from  '  Dar-ik  '  =  (£)&  ,  from  Dar,  gate  ;  i.  e.  the  royal  gate,  has 
been  retracted,  Phoenician  Inscriptions,  Gottingen,  1889,  p.  8. 
(Note  that  Hitzig,  '  Daniel,'  p.  77,  derived  the  name  from  the 
Sanscrit  darcana,  darcamana  —  mirror,  appearance  and  Len- 
gerke,  '  Dan.',  229,  from  ^K^  or  Uj>  —  '  lord,  king,'  i.  e.  the 
royal  coin  par  excellence.} 

Bertin.  Proceedings  Society  for  Biblical  Archeology  r,  Feb.  5, 
1884,  p.  87,  mentioned  that  a  contract  of  the  twelfth  year  of 
Nabonidus  contains  the  word  dariku  which  he  believed 
might  be  the  original  of  the  name  of  the  coin.  This 


29  Suidas   said,    Aapeinoi  .  .  .   OVK  airb   Aapeiov  TQV    Eepgov   vrarpoc,   aAA'   a0' 
ertpov    nvb<;    TrahaioTtpov    paaihetjs    uvofiaaftrjaav.        See    Hultsch.     '  Metro- 
logicorum  scriptorum  reliquiae,'   vol.    i.  p.   335,   21  ff.     Compare   also 
Harpocration,  sub.  v.,  Schol.  ad  Aristoph.,  1  ff.,  EccL,  602,  who  remarked 

de  AapeiKol  ov%,  o»f  ol  TrAeiovf  VOJUI^OVGIV,  OTTO  Aapeiov  TOV  Zepgov  Trarpo^, 
.  paaiMw;.     See  Hultsch,  '  Metrol.'  vol.  1,  p.  311,  1.  2-5  ; 
pp.  315,  1.  17  ;  p.  348,  1.  20. 

30  See  Cook's   'Bible  Commentary,'   vi.,    314   Andrea,    op.   cit.,    49. 
Hengstenberg,  '  Daniel,'  51,  Hjlvernick,  '  Untersuchungen,'  78,  etc.,  etc. 

31  See  above  note  29  on  Harpocration,  and  compare  Gesenius,  '  Thesau- 
rus,' 353,  de  Lagarde,  '  Abhandlungen,'  242,  quoted  by  Hoffmann,  ZA. 
ii.  50.  who  regarded  Aapm-o?  like  A«/;////>//r  as  a  by-form  of  Darius. 

3-  For  the  extreme  improbability  of  the  derivation  of  this  word  from 
I  In-  i  i;m  ic  Dnrius,  see  his  entire  article,  Ztschr.  fur  AMI/I-.,  ii.  49-56.  As 
•  •:irly  as  I  l,-'i\  ornirk,  •  Untci  s.'.  7H,  n.  :!,  1888,  the  difficulty  of  such  a  sup- 
was  IVIt. 


39 

however.  M-ems  to  In1  tin-  name  of  some  agricultural  product. 
(So  Tallqvist,  '  Sprache  der  Contracte  Xabnnaids/ y>.  66.  For 
the  word  cf.  Nbk.  4o->.  7,  Strassmaier.  w  Habylonische  Texte'; 
<hn'ik<i<  Xbk.  :)4T.  1<>;  t<J/'t'k<(-'.-?>~\ — also  * Alphabetisches 
Worterverzeichniss,3  AV  1(.»19.)  It  appears  hardly  possible. 
therefore,  to  connect  it  with  the  later  SapeiKos.  While  the 
true  derivation  of  the  name  of  the  coin  lias  probably  not  yet 
been  discovered,  its  connection  with  the  name  Darius  appears 
no  lono'er  possible.  The  assertions  of  Snidas  and  Harpocration. 
therefore,  that  the  coin  was  not  named  from  Darius  Ilystaspis. 
1m t  from  some  older  monarch  must  thus  fail  to  the  ground, 
and  with  it  the  hope  of  an  identification  of  Darius  the  Median 
with  an  older  kin"1  of  this  name. 

If  there  is  no  room  in  history  for  this  Median  kin^  of  the 
Hook  of  Daniel,  and  it  appears  coii>e<juently  that  such  a  ruler 
could  not  have  existed,  but  that  Media,  passed  from  Asty; 
and  Habylon  from  Xabonidus,  to  ( 'yrus,  how  is  it  possible  to 
account  for  this  interpolation  of  a  Median  rule  in  the  Hook  of 
Daniel  ( 

The  author  evidently  believed  that  Habylonia  passed  into 
Median  hands  before  it  reached  Cyrus.  The  theory  is  not 
tenable  that  Darius  the  Median  \va>  a  Median  prince  to  whom 
Cyrus  had  u'iven  Babylon  as  a  reward  for  hi>  service-.  (So  \"\<r- 
nolles,  -Oeuvres,'  ii.  .")li»s«j.  followed  by  Leiiormant.  'Manual 
of  the  Ancient  History  of  the  Kast,'  j>.  4(.M>).  Nor  can  we 
suppose  him  to  have  been  a  sort  of  satrap  or  vice-kin-:.  (So 
Andrea,  »/>./•/>.  .").")  ;  Pu>ey.  •  Danii-1,*  HJn. ,  The  author  of  Daniel 
represents  Darius  with  full  kindly  powers.  Darius  divides  the 
empire  into  one  hundred  and  twenty  satrapies  (ch.  vi.  1);  lie 
>i_u-ns  a  royal  decree  making  it  unalterable  law  (ch.  vi.  7.  8  : 
he  issues  a  proclamation  to  all  peoples,  nations  and  lanniiaiivs 
that  dwell  in  the  earth  (ch.  vi.  *2:>}  ;  and  the  author  dates  accord- 
ing to  his  i-eiu'ii  and  refers  nowhere  to  any  overlord  (ch.  ix.  I). 

The  question  may  be  divided  into  two  heads:  /'"/-A-/,  Why 
does  the  author  of  Daniel  believe  that  the  Medes  held  Baby- 
lon before  the  Persians  (  S,-roin/.  Why  does  he  call  his 
Median  kiii^-  by  the  familiar  name  of  Darius  ( 

A.  In  order  to  answer  the  Hist  (juestion  it  seems  necessary 
to  a'ive  a  very  brief  outline'  of  the  Median  history.  Accord- 


40 

ing  r<>  flic  record  of  Herodotus  the  Median  kingdom  was 
founded  by  Deiokes.  If  the  chronology  of  the  Greek  historian 
is  at  all  correct,  Deiokes  must  have  founded  his  kingdom,  as 
Tide  has  pointed  ont  (k  Geschichte,'^.  408),  during  the  reign  of 
Sennacherib  in  "Assyria  (705-681  B.  C.).  (For  an  historical 
examination  of  the  foundation  of  Media  see  Delattre,  '  Medes,' 
p.  1L>!>/'.) 

This  whole  question,  however,  is  very  uncertain  and  has  little 
bearing  on  what  follows.  The  son  of  Deiokes  was  Phraortes, 
who  is  really  the^first  historical  king  of  Media.  (According  to 
Herodotus  he  must  have  reigned  from  640  until  625  B.  C.) 
Following  the  account  of  Herodotus,  not  content  with  ruling 
over  the  Medes  alone,  Phraortes  marched  against  and  subju- 
gated the  Persians.  Then,  at  the  head  of  the  combined  forces 
of  Persians  and  Medes,  he  set  out  to  conquer  Asia,  passing 
from  one  people  to  the  other.  Finally  he  attacked  the  Assy- 
rians, at  that  time  isolated  by  the  defection  of  their  allies,  and 
not  only  suffered  defeat  but  was  killed  during  the  expedition, 
having  ruled  twenty-two  years.  His  reign  coincides  with  the 
last  twenty-two  years  of  that  of  Asurbanipal.  As  Tiele  remarks 
(k  Geschichte,'  408),  it  is  certainly  striking  that  this  latter 
king  never  followed  the  example  of  his  predecessors  in  attack- 
ing Media.  The  probable  reason  was  that  the  power  of 
Phraortes  was  too  great  to  admit  of  such  an  attempt.  If  we 
accept  the  chronology  of  Herodotus,  the  year  of  Phraortes' 
attack  on  Nineveh,  625  B.  C.,  coincides  with  the  time  of  the 
death  of  Asurbanipal  and  the  defection  of  Babylon  from  the 
Assyrian  rule.  In  spite  of  her  difficult  position,  however, 
A  — vria  seemed  still  to  have  possessed  sufficient  power  to  cast 
off  the  Medes  for  a  time.  Phraortes  was  succeeded  by  his  son 
(  Vaxares,  who  completed  his  father's  work  ;  and  under  this  mon- 
arch the  Median  power  reached  the  summit  of  its  greatness. 
According  to  the  account  of  Herodotus  (i.  73,  74),  Cyaxares  care- 
fully reorganizing  the  Median  army  ;  dividing  the  spearmen, 
archers,  and  cavalry  into  separate  troops,  inarched  with  his 
entire  force  against  Nineveh,  intending,  in  vengeance  for  the 
defeat  and  death  of  his  father,  completely  to  destroy  the 
city.  Ills  tiisl.  -ie^-e.  owing  to  the  Scythian  irruption  into  his 
kingdom,  he  was  forced  to  raise',  but  h'nalK,  shaking  oil'  the 


barbarians,  he  besieged  Nineveh  anew  and  at  length  made  an 
end  of  the  Assyrian  power. 

According  to  the  account  of  Berossus,  which  may  be  trust- 
worthy, the  Babylonian  king,  whose  son  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
married  to  the  daughter  of  the  Median  chief,  helped  the  Medes 
in  this  siege.  (See  Tiele,  '  Gesch.',  410.)  It  should  be  noticed 
here  that  Berossus  and  the  authors  dependent  on  him  did  not 
know  of  (Vaxares,  but  believed  that  Nineveh  was  conquered 
by  Astvaii'es.  According  to  the  account  of  Abydenus,  how- 
ever. the  king  of  Babylon  />//.sv//o.v.v,,/'  (Nabopolassar),  having 
married  his  son  Nabukodrossoros  to  the  daughter  of  the  Median 
chief  Ax<I<i/mh\  proceeded  <ilon>  against  Nineveh.33 

About  the  details  of  the  fall  of  Nineveh  there  is  no  record 
either  in  Herodotus  or  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions,  the  last 
Assyrian  kings  of  whom  we  have  any  document  being  Jx///-- 
etUAlAni-ukinni  and  x///-xW/'-/x/-////.  (See  He/old  -  Literatur,' 
\'2'2).  IIero(lotus,  i.  1<>7,  merely  mentioned  the  capture  of 
Nineveh  by  the  Medes.  giving  no  detailed  account,  while  in  the 
A»yrian  inscriptions  there  i>  absolutely  no  reference  to  the 
event.  Kqiially  silent  are  the  documents  of  Nabopolassar,  the 
father  of  Nebiichadne/zar  and  lirst  independent  king  of  I'aby- 
lon,  in  which,  in  view  of  the  statement  of  IJerossus,  ju>t  men- 
tioned, we  might  expect  to  tind  some  allusion  to  the  overthrow 
of  Assyria. 

Winckler's  opinion.  ba>ed  on  the  silence  of  I  lerodotus  /.  c. 
regarding  the  participation  of  the  Babylonians  in  the  >iege  <>f 
Nineveh,  was  that  the  Mcdes  captured  the  Assyrian  capital 
alone.  This  view  has  been  rightly  objected  to  by  Lehmann, 
'  Samaseumnldn,'  ii.  is.").  An  •argumentum  ex  silentio'is  at 
poor  reasoning.  Moreover.  Tiele  has  pointed  out  that  the 
continuation  of  the  Babylonian  power  would  have  been  impos- 
sible had  Nabopolassar  remained  neutral  in  the  war  between 
Media,  and  Assyria  (see  Ztw/u1.  j'">'  Assyriologie^  vii.  p.  111). 


is  the  Armenian  form  of  Astyages,  see  note  to  Annals, 
ii.  2.  For  this  and  fuller  ancient  opinions  regard  ing  t  lie  part  of  the 
Babylonians  in  the  fall  of  Nineveh  we  may  compare  Delattre,  '  Les 
Chaldeens  jusi,iiVi  la  formation  de  1'Empire  de  Nabochodonossor,'  and 
Tiele,  '  Geschichte,'  414  and  421. 


The  account  of  Berossue  then,  regarding  tlie  Babylonian  and 
Median  alliance  against  Assyria  seems  to  commend  itself  to 
good  judgment. 

At  any  rate  the  chief  facts  are  certainly  clear :  Nineveh  was 
destroyed, — so  thoroughly  that  Xenophon,  when  crossing  Asia 
in  401  B.  C.  with  the  ten  thousand,  mistook  the  ruins  of  the 
great  city  for  those  of  Median  towns  laid  waste  by  the  Persians. 
(See  Anabasis,  iii.  4;iv.  12,  and  compare  in  this  connection 
Zephaniah  ii.  13-15.)  It  seems  generally  recognized,  and  the 
opinion  of  almost  all  antiquity  (the  untrustworthy  records  of 
Abydenus  excepted),  that  the  Medes  played  the  chief  part  in 
the  ruin  of  Assyria,  and  in  this  historical  fact  I  believe  lies  the 
key  to  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  Darius  the  Median. 

The  interpolation  by  the  author  of  Daniel  of  a  Median  rule 
in  Babylon  directly  after  the  fall  of  the  Babylonian  house 
may  possibly  depend  on  a  confusion  between  the  story  of  the 
fall  of  Nineveh  and  the  account  of  the  overthrow  of  Babylon. 
Nineveh  fell  at  the  hands  of  the  Medes.  Some  authors  might 
differ  as  to  the  name  of  the  Median  prince  who  destroyed  it, 
but  it  seems  to  have  been  generally  recognized  by  the  ancients 
that  the  Medes  captured  and  overthrew  the  city.  Babylon  was 
conquered  by  Cyrus  the  Persian,  who  had  but  a  few  years  pre- 
viously subdued  these  same  Medes  to  his  standard.  What 
more  natural  'than  that  an  author  writing  at  a  much  later 
period  and  having  no  historical,  but  rather  a  moral  object  in 
view,  should  confuse  the  accounts  of  the  fall  of  the  two  great 
cities  of  the  ancient  world  ?  The  author  of  Daniel,  probably 
influenced  by  the  story  of  the  fall  of  Nineveh,  as  a  more  vivid 
fulfillment  of  the  prophecy  of  the  mysterious  writing,  makes 
a  Median  ruler  receive  Babylon  after  the  overthrow  of  the 
native  dynasty,  and  then  mentions  later  the  historical  Cyrus. 
We  may  suppose  that  the  Biblical  writer  believed  that  Cyrus 
succeeded  to  the  empire  of  Babylon  on  the  death  of  the 
Median  Darius. 

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

As  early  as  the  eleventh  century  of  our  era  the  view  was 
advanced  by  the  Benedictine  monk,  Marianus  Scotus 


43 

(quoted  Bertholdt,  t  Daniel,'  844),  that  Darius  the  Median  was 
Darius  Hystaspis,  and,  on  examining  certain  points  in  the 
account  of  Daniel,  it  will  appear  that  this  is  probably  the 
correct  solution  of  the  difficulty.  In  chapter  ix.  1,  Darius  the 
Median  is  said  to  be  the  son  of  Xerxes  (Ahasuerus),  and  it  is 
stated  that  he  established  one  hundred  and  twenty  satrapies ; 
Darius  Hystaspis  was  the  father  of  Xerxes  and  according  to 
Herodotus,  iii.  89,  established  tn\'/it//  satrapies.  Darius  the 
Median  entered  into  po»i>sion  of  Babylon  after  the  death  of 
Belshazzar;  Darhis  Ilystaspis  conquered  Babylon  from  the 
hands  of  the  rebels.  (So  Herodotus  iii.  153-160.)  It  seems 
clear  from  this  comparison,  and  in  view  of  the  impossibility  of 
reconciling  with  history  the  existence  of  a  Median  ruler  of 
Babylon,  that  the  name  Darius  in  Daniel  is  due  to  a  confusion 
with  that  of  the  son  of  Hystasp 

Justus  Xenoplion  made  (Vaxares  the  son  of  As  ty  ages,  so 
the  writer  of  Daniel  must  have  made  his  Darius  the  son  of 
Xerxes,  and,  in  addition  to  this,  transferred  in  a  distorted  form 
certain  facts  of  the  resign  of  Darius  Hystaspis  to  the  reign  of 
Darius  the  Mede.  (The  idea  a>  stated  by  Friedi'ich  Delitzsch, 
in  the  '('ahver  Bibellexicoii.'  1:17.  !•"•*,  that  the1  original  of 
Darius  the  Median  may  have  been  Cyrus'  general  /}//><//•// 
(Gobryas),  wlio  captured  Babylon,  seems  very  unsatisfactory). 

Darius  the  Mede  appears  therefore  to  have  been  the  product 
of  a  mixture  of  traditions  ;  on  the  one  hand,  the  story  of  the 
capture  and  destruction  of  Nineveh  by  the  Mede>.  sixty-eight 
years  before  the  fall  of  Babylon,  may  have  contributed  to  the 
historical  confusion  of  the  author's  mind  and  influenced  him 
to  insert  a  Median  rule  in  Babylon  before  the  Persians;  while 
on  the  other  hand  the  fame  of  the  great  Darius  Hystaspis  and 
of  his  capture  of  Babylon  from  the  rebels  may  have  led  to  the 
choice  of  the  name  •  Darius  '  for  the  Median  interloper,  and 
induced  the  Biblical  writer  to  ascribe  in  a  vague  way  certain 
events  of  the  life  of  the  forme]1  to  the  reign  of  the  latter.30 

34  Compare  Beers,  '  Richtige  Vereinigung  der  Regierungsjahre,'p.  22, 
Bertholdt,  «  Daniel, 'p.  iv.,  Lengerke, '  Dan.'  230,  and  lately  Kamphausen, 
'  Das  Buch  Daniel  und  die  neuere  Geschichtsforschung.'  p.  29. 

86  A  similar  confusion  of  persons  is  seen  in  the  well  known  Greek 
h-gcnd  concerning  the  fiery  dea tli  of  &&rda,nvp&luB(A$urbanipal).  Prof. 


44 

It  Kvms  apparent  tlierefore  that  the  interpolation  of  Darius 
the  Median  must  be  regarded  as  the  third  and  perhaps  the  most 
ir  luring  inaccuracy  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

To  recapitulate  briefly :  the  assertion  that  Belshazzar  was 
the  last  king  of  Babylon,  the  introduction  of  the  Queen 
Dowager  at  a  feast  on  the  eve  of  the  capture  of  Babylon,  and 
the  interpolation  of  a  Median  king  Darius  between  the  native 
Babylonian  and  Persian  dynasties  are  all  contrary  to  history. 

Haupt  in  his  corrections  and  additions  to  the  Akkadische  und  Sumerische 
Keilschrifttexte  in  the  Zeitschrif t  fur  Keilschriftsforschung,  ii.  pp.  282, 
rem.  4,  advanced  the  explanation  that  this  account  arose  from  a  con- 
fusion in  later  tradition  between  Sardanapalus  and  his  half-brother 
Samassumukin,  who  having  rebelled  in  Babylon  against  his  brother, 
perished  in  the  flames  when  the  city  was  captured  by  the  victorious 
Assyrian  king.  This  theory  however  is  not  adopted  by  Lehmann, 
k  Samassumukin,'  p.  2,  who  is  inclined  to  believe  that  the  legend  may 
have  had  an  historical  basis  in  the  fact  that  Nineveh  was  destroyed  by 
fire,  at  the  time  of  its  capture  by  the  Medes.  (?) 


CHAPTER   THIED. 

THE   EEAL  VALUE   OF   THE   FIFTH   CHAPTER   OF   DANIEL. 

It  may  well  be  asked,  however,  if  these  inaccuracies  treated 
of  in  the  last  chapter  necessarily  show  that  the  account  of  the 
fifth  chapter  of  Daniel,  regarding  the  miraculous  appearance 
of  a  warning  writing  during  a  feast  on  the  eve  of  the  capture 
of  Uabylon,  is  invented,  and  if  it  is  not  possible  that  there 
may  he  here  an  echo  of  history  which  can  still  he  detected. 
This  (juestion  may  certainly  he  answered  in  the  affirmative. 

We  have  already  seen  that  it  is  possible  to  explain  both  the 
true  meaning  of  the  mysterious  sentence,  and  why  the  phrase 
might  have  been  unintelligible  to  the  hierogrammatists.  We 
may  ask,  furthermore,  whether  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
consider  the  portent  a  miracle  and  whether  it  is  not  possible 
that  the  inscription  wa>  produced  by  human  means. 

Two  theories  have  been  advanced  as  to  a  possible  non-mirac- 
ulous production  of  the  writing:  >mne  scholars  have  held  that 
it  might  have  been  made  by  loyal  servants  of  the  king;  others 
have  regarded  it  as  the  work  of  conspirators. 

The  former  supposition  which  was  advanced,  for  instance,  by 
Dertholdt,1  does  not  seem  tenable,  as  loyal  servants  would 
hardly  have  used  such  a  disrespectful  >enteiice  with  which  to 
warn  their  master.  It  mu>t  he  remembered,  of  course,  that  the 
symbolical  meaning  of  the  pliras<-  was  not  known  when  this 
suggestion  was  oifered. 

The  second  theory,  that  it  might  have  been  produced  by 
conspirators  against  the  royal  house,  has  more  inherent  proba- 
bility.' Judging  from  the  historical  accounts  of  the  period,  a 
powerful  conspiracy  must  have  been  concerned  in  the  over- 
throw of  the  Babylonian  power.  It  may  be  well,  therefore, 
in  this  connection,  before  entering  on  the  discussion  concerning 

1  Bertholdt,  Daniel,  p.  ?,:>:i. 

-  In  justice  to  Bertholdt  it  should  be  remarked  that  he  mentioned 
this  supposition  also  as  a  possible  conjecture. 


46 

the  character  and  value  of  the  Biblical  account,  to  state  briefly 
flu'  history  of  the  fall  of  'Babylon,  comparing  the  most  impor- 
tant versions. 

Previous  to  the  discovery  of  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  relat- 
ing to  this  event,  comparatively  little  could  be  known  accu- 
rately. The  chief  sources  upon  which  historians  were  forced 
to  depend  were  the  account  of  Berossus,  which  Eusebius  and 
Josephus  took  from  Alexander  Polyhistor,  and  the  narrative  of 
Herodotus,  i.  ISSjf.  The  statement  of  Berossus  in  Josephus, 
'  Contra  Apionem,'  i.  20,  is  as  follows  :3  '  Nabuchodonosor  .  .  . 
fell  sick  and  departed  this  life  when  he  had  reigned  forty-three 
years,  whereupon  his  son  Evilmerodach  obtained  the  kingdom. 
He  governed  public  affairs  after  an  illegal  and  impure  manner, 
and  had  a  plot  laid  against  him  by  Neriglissar,  his  sister's  hus- 
band, and  was  slain  by  him  when  he  had  reigned  but  two 
years.  After  he  was  slain,  Neriglissar,  the  person  who  had 
plotted  against  him,  succeeded  to  the  kingdom  and  reigned  four 
years.  His  son,  Laborosoarchod,  though  but  a  child,  obtained  the 
kingdom  and  kept  it  nine  months,  but  by  reason  of  the  very 
ill  temper  and  ill  practices  which  he  exhibited  to  the  world,  a 
plot  was  laid  against  him  by  his  friends  and  he  was  tortured  to 


3  Naftovxofiov6aopo(;  .  .  .  einreauv  Etf  dppuariav  fierrjA^d^aro  rov  ftiov, 
err)  reoaapdnovra  rpia,  rijg  6e  Paotheiag  Kvpiog  kyivero  6  mbg  avrov 
Ovrog  trpoardg  ruv  npayfidruv  dvouug  /cat  a<7£/ly«f,  £Tri(3ovfav&£i<; 
VTTO  rov  T-rjv  dSetyi/v  s^ovrog  avrov  ^rjpty'kiaaoopov  dvypE'&q,  fiaaihevaag  err]  6'vo. 
Merd  de  rb  dvatpedr/vai  rovrov  6ia6et;dfj,evo£  rrjv  dp%T/v  6  sTriSovAevoas  avriS 
Nqpiyhiaaodpof  kBaaifavoev  zrrj  reaaapa.  Tovrov  vlbg  Aaj3opoGodp%o6o(;  s 
fj,ev  rf/g  fiaadetas  iraig  hv  fj.rjvag  hvsa,  emflovfev&eic  6e  6id  rb 

VTTO  r&v  fy'ihuv  aTrerviuTravia&r}.  '  ATrohojusvov  6e  rovrov  ovve"X&6vre^  ol 
avrti  K.OLVIJ  r?/v  ftaaiheiav  TrepiedyKav  Jlafiovvrjfiu  rivi  rwr  P/c 
bvri  EK  rfjg  avr^g  ETrtavardaeuf  .  .  .  Ovaqc;  Je  r?/g  fiaai'Aeiac;  avrov  kv  rcJ 
ETrraKai6eKdr(.)  tree  TrpoE^eXr/^v&cjf  Kvpoz  EK  rffq  Tlepaidoi;  /nerd  6vvdjU£u<;  TroTiTiij^  K.CU 
KaraarpEi}>afj,evo^  rrjv  ^onrr/v  'Aaiav  Trdaav  upuifGEv  ETTI  rrjq  HafivJicJviag.  A'ia$6- 
'•  Xr/.Vo/'jv/fJof  ri/v  efyofiov  avrov  aKavrijcag  fierd  ri/c;  fivvdp-uq  aal  Trapara^'iin--- 
vi>£,  ?'/rrt/tiri(;  ry  /laxy  aal  <j>vyuv  bhiyooro$  aw£K%.ei<r&q  ei$  ri/v  'Bopannrijruv  ~o/ir. 
Kr/xir  >\i  ]',n  J,i>'/<~)va  Karaha(36fj.evo(;  /cat  avvrd^ag  rd  e^u  rfft  irdhewc,  reixn  /caracr/ca- 
IJKII.  Aid  rb  "Kiav  ai>r(J  Trpay/narinr/v  /cat  dvadJujrov  <j>ar//r<ir  r//r  ~n//r 
:  -/  I'x'ipvnrirov  £KiTO?liopii//cruv  rov  \<i^ui'rt/^ov. 
avrog  r?/v  TTO'/  ID/  >i\  !(/,i>  r///,'}  t--y%eipiaavTo<;  avrov 
•  iin:t7ri.ir  hu'i  bn-cn'ihtirriitim'  ni'TM  K(t./>/mr/ai> 

V  rn 
ftiop. 


47 


death.  After  his  death  the  conspirators  got  together  and  by 
common  consent  put  the  crown  upon  the  head  of  Nabonnedus, 
a  man  of  Babylon  and  one  who  belonged  to  that  insurrection. 
.  .  .  But  when  he  was  come  to  the  seventeenth  year  of  his 
reign,  Cyrus  came  out  of  Persia  with  a  great  army,  and  hav- 
ing already  conquered  the  rest  of  Asia,  came  hastily  to  Babylon. 
When  Xabonnedus  perceived  that  lie  was  coming  to  attack 
him,  he  met  him  with  his  forces,  and  joining  battle  was  de- 
feated and  lied  away  with  a  few  of  his  troops  and  shut  himself 
up  within  the  city  of  Borsippns.  Hereupon  (\vrus  took  I  Baby- 
lon and  gave  order  that  the  outer  wall  of  the  city  be  demol- 
ished, because  the  city  had  proved  very  troublesome,  and  cost 
him  a  great  deal  of  pains  to  take.  He  then  marched  to  Borsip- 
pus  to  besiege  Xabonnedus.  As  Naboimedus  however,  did  not 
sustain  the  siege,  but  delivered  himself  up  beforehand,  he  was 
kindly  used  by  ( 'yrus  who  gave  him  Carmania  as  a  place  to 
dwell  in,  sending  him  out  of  Babylon.  Nabonnedus  accord- 
ingly >pcnt  the  rest  of  his  life  in  that  country  and  there  died/ 
(For  this  last  statement  concerning  the  banishment  of  Nabon- 
nedus to  Carmania,  cf.  also  Ku>eb.,  •  Fvang.  Pnep/  i.\.  4n,  41, 
and  kChron.  Arinen.'  i.  In,  the  account  of  Abydenus.) 

Herodotus,  i.  l*\//'.  relates  that  the  King  of  Babylon, 
Labynetus,  the  son  of  the  great  queen  Nitocris.  was  attacked 
by  Cyrus.  The  Persian  king,  on  his  march  to  Babylon, 
arrived  at  the  river  (iyndes  a  tributary  of  the  Tigris.  While 
the  Persians  were  trying  to  cross  this  stream,  one  of  the  white 
consecrated  horses  boldly  entered  the  water  and.  being  swept 
away  by  the  rapidity  of  the  current,  was  lost.  Cyrus,  exas- 
perated by  the  accident,  suspended  his  operations  against  Baby- 
lon and  waited  the  entire  summer  in  satisfying  his  resentment 
by  draining  the  river  dry.  On  the  approach  of  the  following 
spring,  however,  he  marched  against  Babylon.  The  Babylon- 
ians, as  he  advanced,  met  and  gave  him  battle,  but  were  defeated 
and  driven  back  into  the  city.  The  inhabitants  of  Babylon 
had  previously  guarded  against  a  siege  by  collecting  provisions 
and  other  necessaries  sufficient  for  many  years'  support,  so 
that  Cyrus  was  compelled  to  resort  to  stratagem.  He  accord- 


48 

inglv'  •  placed  one1  detachment  of  his  forces  where  the  river  first 
enters  the  city  and  MI  i  other  where  it  leaves  it,  directing  them 
to  go  into  the  channel  and  attack  the  town  wherever  the  passage 
could  he  effected.  After  this  disposition  of  his  men  he  with- 
drew with  the  less  effective  of  his  troops  to  the  marshy  ground 
.  .  .  and  pierced  the  hank,  introducing  the  river  into  the  lake 
(the  lake  made  by  Nitocris  some  distance  from  Babylon,  see 
Herodotus,  i.  185),  by  which  means  the  bed  of  the  Euphrates 
became  sufficiently  shallow  for  the  object  in  view.  The  Per- 
sians in  their  station  watched  the  better  opportunity  and  when 
the  stream  had  so  far  retired  as  not  to  be  higher  than  their 
thighs  they  entered  Babylon  without  difficulty.'  The  account 
goes  on  to  say  that,  as  the  Babylonians  were  engaged  in  a  fes- 
tival, they  were  completely  surprised  by  the  sudden  attack  and 
unable  to  defend  the  city  which  thus  fell  an  easy  prey  to  the 
invaders. 

The  two  cuneiform  documents  relating  to  the  fall  of  Babylon 
which  have  shed  a  wonderful  light  on  this  period  of  the  world's 
history  are  the  Cyrus  Cylinder  and  the  Annals  of  Nabonidus, 
both  of  which  are  translated  and  explained  in  APPENDIX  I. 
The  former  was  discovered  in  1879  by  the  workmen  of  Hor- 
muzd  Rassam  in  the  ruins  of  Qacr  at  Babylon,  a  hill  which, 
according  to  the  opinion  of  Rassam,  covers  the  remains  of  a 
great  palace,  i.  e.  that  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  tablet  called 
the  i  Annals  of  Nabonidus  '  was  obtained  by  the  British  Mu- 
seum in  1879  from  Spartoli  and  Co.  The  place  where  it  was 
found  is  unknown,  although  Mr.  Pinches  declares  decidedly 
that  the  document  came  from  Babylon.  It  seems  to  belong  to 
a  series  of  annalistic  tablets  which  were  collected  and  pre- 
served by  the  Achaemeiiian  kings.  (See  further,  APPENDIX  I.) 
The  Cyrus  Cylinder  is  a  highly  laudatory  account  of  Cyrus's 


T?/V  crparir/v  diraoav  k%  kfifiokiig  TOV  Trorafiov  ry  t-f  r>/v  TTO/UV 
htt'i  <>-in\ii  a'rrir  rt/r  ~o'/  tor  rd^ac,  erzpovc;  ry  e^isi  e/c  rf/c,  Trd/Uof  6  Trora/JOf, 
-(.>   nT/KiT(,'>  ora.i>  <}/(i3(iroi>  TO  pn:tipov  WuvTdi   }  ;  -•iw/nw  i-nih'(Li  rnrrij  tr  ri/r  ~u//r. 
Ofrr^i    r//cf/r  i«u  Mi-it   ravra  Trapaiveaac,   airfaavve  arror  m<v  T<,>  a^'pi/K.)  -or  (rrpuror. 

.  .  .  rov  yiij>  -oTiifini'  <h<'.>/>i<x/  i-r;a}ti]<.>i>  tr  r//r  '/iuvijV  iormir  t'/ot  -TO  a/>  \-ti/or 
nii<>i>oi<  <\i<ifi<iTin<  tirai  i~oi/jm  .  .  .  ol  Utpfiui  o/7Tf/>  rrrTu  _\<i-<>  ';-'  arrt.t  rorTt.i  hard 
-n  /lirtipov  TOV  EvtypjjTeo)  Trorafj.ov  vKOvevoaTijKoToc  ni'tipl  ('.>r  n-  iiinor  /i///>t>r  iia'/  inrn 
/,//  KdTii  rorro  imjinur  /,  r///1 


49 

glorious  entrance  into  Babylon,  evidently  written  by  some 
scribe  under  tbe  Persian  rule,  while  the  so-called  Amials  is  a 
concise  historical  summary  of  the  events  of  the  reign  of 
Xabonidus  until  the  accession  of  Cyrus,  a  paragraph  being 
devoted  to  the  events  of  each  year. 

Before  passing  on  to  the  history  of  the  advance  of  the 
Persians  on  Babylonia  the  following  facts  should  be  noticed. 
After  ryru>.  king  of  the  unimportant  state  of  Anxdn*  accord- 
ing to  the  record  of  the  Annals,  bad  gotten  possession  of  Media, 
the  Persian  prince  finding  himself  transformed  from  the  ruler 
of  an  insignificant  province  to  the  leader  of  a  great  kingdom, 
turned  bis  eyes  westward.  Here  Xabonidus  the  king  of  Bab- 
ylon, wbo  had  at  first  regarded  the  defeat  of  bis  old  enemies 
the  Medes"  as  a  direct  intervention  of  the  gods,  now  becom- 
ing alarmed  at  the  sudden  rise  of  this  new  power  concluded 
an  offensive  and  defensive  alliance  with  Lydia  and  Kgypt,  a 
league  which  should  certainly  have  been  sufficient  to  check  the 
advance  of  the  Persian  forces.  Lydia  was  compelled,  how- 
ever, by  the  swift  movements  of  the  enemy  to  defend  herself 
without  waiting  for  her  allies.  Cyrus,  after  totally  routing  the 
Lydian  army  at  Pteria.7  proceeded  directly  against  Sardis,  the 
capital,  which  lie  captured  without  difficulty  and  there  estab- 
lished hi>  permanent  headquarters  in  the  northwest.  The  Per- 
sian king  did  not  hasten  at  once  against  Babylonia,  Ms  second 
powerful  rival,  but.  after  settling  affairs  in  Lydia  and  ap- 

'  For  the  chronology  <>l  Cyrus'  reign,  his  ancestry  and  kingdom,  see 
Appendix  I,  note  to  Cyrus  Cyl.,  1.  21  and  in  Annals,  col.  2.  I.  lo. 

1  The  .Aledcs  during  the  reign  of  Xabonidtis  had  attacked  and 
destroyt  d  tli«'  city  of  Harran  and  the  temple  of  Sin.  Of.  VR.  64.  12. 

7  See  Herodotus,  i.  76.  Note  that  Justin.  Hist.,  i.  7.  makes  Cyrus 
begin  the  war  with  Babylon  before  that  with  Lydia.  interrupt  in'.;  his 
conflict :  however,  in  order  to  conquer  Cnesus  who  had  offered  aid  to 
Babylon.  Sulpicius,  His!.,  ii.  in.  passed  directly  from  the  Median  con- 
quest to  thai  of  Babylonia.  -CrOBSUS,  king  of  Lydia,  whom  Cyrus  cap- 
tured, was  according  to  Herodotus,  i.  !~>.  the  brother-in-law  of  Asty- 
ages.  Cyrus  Heated  him  kindly  and  gave  him  the  city  of  Barene  near 
Kcbatana  as  a  residence,  according  to  Ctesias,  with  five  thousand 
riders  mid  ten  thousand  bowmen  as  retinue. 


50 

pointing  guvi'rnnrs"  over  all  the  conquered  provinces,  returned 
to  Echataiw. 

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

The  record  of  the  Annals,  which  must  have  been  very  com- 
plete, is  unhappily  so  mutilated  that  comparatively  little  can  be 
learned  about  the  early  period  of  the  invasion.  We  may  con- 
jecture from  a  very  broken  passage  (col.  ii.  I.  21-22)  that  the 
Persians  may  have  made  an  invasion  from  Elam  against  Erech 
in  the  tenth  year  of  Nabonidus  (see  note  to  passage,  APPENDIX 
I),  but  this  is  by  no  means  certain.  Where  the  text  treating 
of  the  actual  conquest  of  Babylon  is  legible,  the  matter  seems 
practically  to  be  decided.  It  is  stated  that  Nabonidus  entered 
the  Temple  of  Eturkalama  (Annals,  iii.  6),  most  probably  to 
seek  help  from  the  gods.  We  may  then  conjecture, — the 
translation  is  very  doubtful, — that  a  rebellion  against  his 
authority  took  place  on  the  lower  sea.  The  god  Bel  was 
apparently  brought  out  with  a  solemn  religious  festival  (col. 
iii.  8.  9.  10),  and,  as  a  last  resource,  numerous  deities  were 
brought  to  Babylon  as  a  protection  to  that  city.  This, 
says  the  chronicler  of  the  '  Cyrus  Cylinder,'  so  infuriated 
Marduk,  the  god  of  the  city  of  Babylon,  that  he  decided  to 
deliver  up  Nabonidus  to  Cyrus  (see  Cyl.  10^.  and  33,  34). 
In  the  month  Tammuz  (539  B.  C.)  Cyrus  offered  battle  at  Opis 
and  apparently  also  on  a  canal  (?)  Salsallat,  which  evidently 
resulted  in  his  favor.  (See  note  to  Annals,  col.  iii.  I.  12, 
APPENDIX  I.)  The  Babylonians,  defeated  on  all  sides  and  dis- 
gusted with  their  feeble  king,  surrendered  Sippar  to  the  Per- 
sians on  the  14th  of  Tammuz  (539-538  B.C.,  see  Annals  iii.  14). 
As  this  city  was  the  key  to  the  whole  sluice  region  it  was 
important  for  Cyrus  to  get  possession  of  it  before  he  could 
besiege  Babylon  successfully.  By  breaking  the  dams  at  Sippar 
in  case  of  need,  the  water  could  be  cut  off  from  all  the  plain. 
As  we  have  seen,  according  to  the  account  of  Herodotus  just 

8  See  Herodotus,  i.  153.  The  post  of  governor  of  Sardis  was  one  of  the 
moht  important  positions  in  the  Persian  Empire.  This  official  seems  to 
have  held  the  precedence  over  the  neighboring  satraps.  Compare 
A.uf s&tze  zur  altpersischen  (irschirhtr.  p.  -.M. 


51 

given  above,  Babylon  was  said  to  have  been  captured  by  the 
device  of  drawing  off  the  water  of  the  Euphrates  (cf.  also 
Xenophon,  Cyropsedia,  vii.  5,  15),  but  the  short  space  of  time 
intervening  between  the  capture  of  Sippar  and  Babylon  seems 
to  show  that  no  such  device  was  resorted  to.  Two  days  after 
the  capture  of  Sippar  (16th  of  Tammuz),  the  gates  of  the 
capital  itself  were  opened  to  Gobryas,9  the  governor  of 
Gutium  and  commander  of  a  section  of  the  Persian  army, 
who  formally  took  possession  of  the  city  in  Cyrus's  name. 
(See  Annals,  iii.  15,  and  Cyl.,  I.  17,  'without  strife  and  battle 
he  let  him  enter  into  I'abyloii.') 

NaboniduB,  who  had  tied  to  Babylon  after  the  capture  of 
Sippar,  was  taken  prisoner  and  held  to  await  the  coining  of 
Cyrus.  Here  again,  owing  to  a  doubtful  text,  we  are  reduced 
to  conjecture.  The  Babylonian  party  seem  to  have  wished  to 
use  the  temples  as  storehouses  for  arms (?),  for  the  troops  of 
Gobryas  surrounded  them  and  guarded  them  carefully.  (For 
other  opinions  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  passage  see  note  to 
col.  iii../.  IT,  Annals.  A  iM'Kxmx  I.) 

Four  months  later,  on  the  third  of  Marche>van,  Cyrus  him- 
self entered  the  city  of  IJabylon  and  derived  peace  to  all, 
appointing  his  general  (iobryas  governor  of  the  city  and  send- 
ing bark  to  their  own  shrines  the  gods  which  Nabonidns  had 
brought  to  Babylon.  (See  Annals,  iii.  iM.  and  Cyl.  :i.'5-34.) 
The  Persian  monarch  was  received  with  great  rejoicings  by 
the  nobles,  priests  and  people,  who  hastened  to  declare  their 
allegiance  (Cyl.  Is).  He  then  assumed  formally  the  title  of 
king  of  Babylon  and  vf  Sumer  and  Akkad  (Cyl.  ^U),  receiving 

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


52 

the  homage  of  the  tributary  kings  of  the  westland.10  (Cyl.  28.) 
It  is  probable,  in  accordance  with  the  account  of  Berossus, 
ii'iven  above,  that  Cyrus  dismantled  to  some  extent  the  fortifica- 
tions of  Babylon  soon  after  its  capture.  That  he  cannot 
utterly  have  destroyed  the  defences  is  evident  from  the  fact 
that  the  city  stood  repeated  sieges  during  subsequent  revolts; 
one  under  Cyrus,  two  under  Darius  Hystaspis,  and  one  under 
Xerxes.11  Judging  from  the  assertion  of  Jerome  (Comm.  on 
Isaiah  iii.  23 ;  ed.  Yallarsi,  IV.  180),  that  the  walls  had  been 
repaired  and  renewed  as  an  enclosure  for  a  park,  they  were 
probably  at  no  time  completely  destroyed. 

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

Ndbupaliiqur,  the  father  of  the  great  Nebuchadnezzar,  was 
the  first  independent  king  of  Babylon  after  the  overthrow  of 
Assyria.  After  an  uneventful  reign  of  twenty-one  years  he  was 
succeeded  by  his  son  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  real  founder  of  the 
em pire  of  Babylon.  He  was  not  only  a  great  warrior  the  terror  of 
whose  arms  was  felt  as  far  as  Egypt,  and  who,  by  his  conquests 
made  Babylon  the  political  centre  of  a  mighty  empire,  but  also 
a  lover  of  art  and  architecture,  who  prized  his  reputation  as  the 
restorer  of  the  capital  far  more  than  his  military  fame.  (For 
the  glories  of  his  reign  see  Tiele,  '  Geschichte,'  441-4:54:.)  As 
remarked  above,  Nebuchadnezzar  was  the  greatest  name  in 
Babylonian  history,  the  culminating  point  of  Babylonian  glory. 
After  his  time  the  kings  were  weak,  incapable  characters, 
judging  from  the  account  of  Berossus,  not  even  able  to  protect 
their  own  crowns.  The  last  King,  Nabonidus,  though  better 
than  his  immediate  predecessors,  was  the  creature  of  a  conspir- 

10  Gaza  alone  in  the  land  of  the  Philistines  seems  to  have  refused 
tribute  and  offered  resistance  ;  see  the  citation  to  Valesius  Polyb.,  xvi. 
10,  quoted  by  Noldeke,  Aufsatze,  23.  n.  2. 

11  See  G.  Rawlinson,  Herodotus,  425,  n.  5.     For  the  second  revolt  of 
I  i.  i.  by  Ion,  see  Herod.,  iii.  153-160,  the  story  of  Zopyrus.     A  curious  work 
regarding  Zopyrus  is  that  of  Joh.  Christoph.  De  Zopyro    Babylonios 
fallente,  1685. 


53 

acy  against  his  youthful  predecessor  ZabaSi-Mardufc.1*  Nabo- 
nidus  was  probably  not  of  royal  blood,  as  it  is  stated  in  the 
record  of  Berossus  that  he  was  a  man  of  Babylon,  and  he  calls 
himself  in  his  inscriptions,  the  son  of  a  noble. 

It  will  appear,  therefore,  that  the  seeds  of  decay  were  ripen- 
ing fast,  as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  this  king, 
who,  had  he  been  a  different  character,  might  have  delayed  the 
final  catastrophe  at  least  beyond  his  own  lifetime.  But  Xabo- 
nidus,  as  is  evident  from  the  tone  of  the  records  of  his  reign, 
was  by  nature  a  peaceful  prince,  whose  taste  lay  not  in  govern- 
ment or  conquest  but  in  archaeology  and  religion.-  architecture. 
His  inscriptions  are  one  long  list  of  temples  repaired"  and  pious 
duties  performed.  Tiider  his  feeble  sway  the  vast  and  hete- 
rogeneous empire,  lacking  the  strong  hand  of  a  compering 
ruler  to  punish  defection  and  protect  his  subjects  from  for- 
eign attacks,14  naturally  began  to  fall  to  pieces,  until  finally  the 

1-2  Compare  the  account  of  Berossus  given  above  and  the  record  of 
Abydenus  quoting  Megasthenes  as  saving  that  •  Labassorucus'  being 
destroyed,  they  made  v  tea  -pon/^^n-ra  <>'/  or^ir — king  hav- 

ing no  claim  to  this  rank  :  see  Euseb.  Praep.,  Evang.,  ix.  40,  41  ;  Euseb., 
Chron.  Armen.  i.  c.  10. 

Tin-  succession  of  Babylonian  Kings  giveo  by  Hcmssus  is  quite  cor- 
rect and  agrees  not  only  with  the  I'toleni.-ean  Canon  but  with  the 
cuneiform  inscriptions.  The  list  of  kings  with  their  approximate 
dates  is  as  follows  :— 

Nabu-pal-ugur,  625-605  B.C. 

Nabn-kuduiTi-ucur.  G<»4-5<;2  B.C. 

Aniil-Marduk.  561-560  li.C. 

Nergal-sar-ucur.  .V> !»_.")<;  B.C. 

Labasi-Marduk   between  the   Mth   of  Am.    .">(>,   and  the  12th  of 
Duzu.  •">.")."). 

X:ibfi-ii;Vid,  r,,-)} -538  B.C. 

The  Ptolemaean  canon  omits  LabaAi-Marduk  son  of  Nergal-sar-ugur, 
probably  owing  to  his  short  reign  of  but  nine  months.  Only  those 
kings  are  recorded  who  governed  for  longer  than  one  year  ;  see  Floigl, 
'  Cyrus  und  Herodot.'  p.  70.  According  to  Ahydenus,  Labasi-Marduk 
was  a  boy  not  older  than  twelve  years.  See  Floigl,  op.  fit.  25,  and  com- 
pare in  this  connection,  Tiele,  Gesch.  424,  n.  2. 

13  Hagen  in  the  Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie,  ii.  237,  note,  gives  a  com- 
plete list  of  the  temples  repaired  by  Nabonidus. 

*  l4The  king  seems  to  have  been  unable  either  to  prevent  the  attack  of 
the  Medes  on  Harran  or  to  punish  them  for  their  destruction  of  the 
city.  (See  above  note  6  to  this  chapter).  He  was  equally  powerless 
to  resist  the  expedition  of  Amasis  of  Egypt  against  Cyprus  by  which 
several  cities  were  captured.  (See  Tiele,  Gesch.  468). 


54 

Babylonian  name  in  Western  Asia,  became  more  a  shadow 
than  a  reality. 

Toward  the  close  of  his  reign  Nabonidus  showed  himself 
oven  more  incapable  than  in  his  earlier  years,  for  while  devot- 
ing especial  attention  to  the  repairing  and  maintenance  of  the 
t em  pies,  he  entirely  neglected  the  defences  of  the  capital, 
choosing  to  live  in  Tema15  rather  than  in  Babylon,  and  evidently 
leaving  all  military  matters  to  his  son,  who,  as  shown  above, 
was  probably  in  command  of  the  army.  Practically  no  steps 
seem  to  have  been  taken  either  to  prevent  the  advance  of  the 
Persians  or  to  meet  them  when  they  came,  so  that  when  Cyrus 
arrived  he  probably  found  a  people  discontented  with  their 
king  and  ready  to  exchange  his  rule  for  a  firmer  sway.  The 
fact  that  both  Sippar  and  Babylon  were  taken  by  the  Persian 
forces  '  without  battle '  certainly  seems  to  show  that  there 
existed  a  powerful  faction  in  Babylonia  in  league  with  the 
invaders. 

It  is  possible  that  the  priests  of  Marduk  in  the  city  of  Baby- 
lon were  especially  instrumental  in  bringing  about  the  final 
blow.  We  have  already  noticed  that  the  priesthood  was  prob- 
ably hostile  to  Belsaruqur  the  crown-prince.  It  can  easily 
be  imagined  how,  disgusted  with  the  king's  neglect  of  the  reg- 
ular offerings  and  finally  infuriated  with  his  infringement  on 
the  jurisdiction  of  their  god  in  introducing  strange  deities  into 
Babylon,  they  would  naturally  have  cast  their  influence  in  favor 
of  a  change  of  rule.16  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  priests 
exercised  the  most  powerful  influence  in  Babylonian  affairs, 
being  even  stronger  than  the  royal  house.  The  inscriptions  of 
every  sort  point  to  the  supremacy  and  importance  of  tne  reli- 

15  For  Tema  see  note  col.  ii.,  1.  5,  Annals,  Appendix  I. 

10  Nabonidus  was  certainly  not  a  reactionary  heretic  who  tried  to  intro- 
duce a  Sin  cult;  (so  Floigl,  Cyrus  und  Her.,  p.  2),  first,  because  the  king 
did  not  confine  his  attention  to  Sin  (cf .  the  list  of  the  temples  repaired, 
Hagen,  Beitr.  ii.  237  note,)  and  secondly,  as  Tiele  has  pointed  out 
(Geschichte,  460),  it  was  the  priests  of  Marduk  who  inspired  him  to 
repair  the  temples  and  to  give  attention  to  the  cults  of  other  deities. 
<  '«>IM pare  V  R.  64,  16,  where  Marduk  reveals  his  will  in  this  connection 
to  Nabonidus  in  a  dream.  The  insult  to  Marduk  which  turned  the  scale 
against  the  king  was  his  criminal  slothf'ulness  about  protecting  Babylon 
and  his  introduction  of  other  gods  into  Mardnk's  own  city. 


55 

gious  classes,  one  of  the  most  constant  themes  of  these  docu- 
ments being  the  frequent  allusion  to  buildings  of  temples,  tem- 
ple gifts,  restoration  of  offerings,  etc.  This  prominence  of  the 
priestly  classes  is  to  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  they  were  the 
custodians  of  all  knowledge.  The  arts  of  writing,  astronomy, 
and  magic  were  their  peculiar  provinces.  It  will  readily  be 
understood,  therefore,  that  their  favor  or  disfavor  would  turn 
the  scale  in  an  attempt  against  the  reigning  dynasty.  In  addi- 
tion to  this  it  may  be  supposed  that  the  large  Jewish  element 
which  had  been  transplanted  to  Babylon  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
and  which  could  not  be  expected  to  feel  especially  we'll  disposed 
toward  the  Babylonian  dynasty,  probably  played  a  considerable 
part  in  the  h'nal  conspiracy.  Their  reasons  for  so  doing  were 
of  course  not  identical  with  those  of  the  rebellious  Babylonians. 
It  may  be  supposed  that  the  native  Babylonians,  glad  at  any 
price  to  be  rid  of  their  incompetent  ruler,  were  forced  to  make 
the  best  of  a  foreign  supremacy,  while  the  rcligi»>u>  element 
among  the  captive  .lews,  to  whom  permission  to  return  to  Pal- 
estine may  have  been  promised  beforehand,17  certainly  regarded 
Cyrus  as  the  Anointed  of  Jehovah,  who  would  carrv  out  His 
will  in  every  ropect  and  utterly  dotroy  Babylon  and  its  (Jods, 
a  hope  which  Cyrus  was  wise  enough  not  to  realize.  Bearing 
in  mind,  therefore,  the>e  facts  it  seems  by  no  means  unnatural 
to  assume  that  such  a  warning  as  that  described  in  Dan.  v. 
might  have  been  caused  by  the  agency  of  conspirators,  and 
that  a  basis  of  historical  truth  may  underlie  the  account.  The 
tone  of  the  fifth  chapter,  however,  seems  to  show  beyond  doubt 
that  the  Biblical  writer  considered  the  portent  as  a  miracle  sent 
from  (iod,  to  warn  the  impious  king  of  his  impending  punish- 
ment. The  Maccaba'an  author  of  Daniel  accordingly  makes 
use  of  the  account  against  Antiochu>  Kpiphano. 

That  a  festival,  as  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  actually 
took  place  on  the  eve  of  the  capture  of  Babylon  is  not  at  all 

11  Compare  the  enthusiastic  prophecies  regarding  the  destruction  of 
Babylon  and  the  references  to  Cyrus  the  shepherd  of  God,  Isaiah,  xiii. 
xiv.  xliv.  28,  xlv.  ;  Ps.  137.;  Jer.  1-li.  Cyrus  permitted  the  Jews  to 
return  to  their  old  home  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign— 537  B.C.  See 
Ezra,  i.  The  prophecies  of  the  destruction  of  Babylon  were  certainly 
not  carried  out,  the  only  one  fulfilled  to  the  letter  being  that  regarding 
the  return  of  the  Jews. 


56 

improbable.'"  Although  we  have  no  parallel  account  of  such 
an  event  in  the  inscriptions,13  it  certainly  seems  rather  significant 
that  botli  Herodotus  and  Xenophon  allude  to  a  feast  at  this  time. 
As  we-  have  seen,  according  to  Herodotus  i.  191,  Babylon  was 
captured  while  the  besieged  were  off  their  guard  during  a  festi- 
val. Xenophon  also,  alluding  to  the  capture  of  Babylon,  says 
that  Cyrus  had  heard  that  a  feast  was  going  on.  (Cyrop.  vii. 
5,  15.)  Of  course  the  allusion  in  Jeremiah  li.  39,  referred  to 
in  Kawlinson's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  424,  is  merely  general  and 
cannot  be  understood  as  referring  to  a  final  festival. 

It  is  now  demonstrated  by  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  that  at 
least  the  name  Belshazzar,20  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  Old 
Testament,  is  based  on  correct  tradition,  notwithstanding  the 
errors  into  which  the  author  fell  regarding  the  person  of  the 
last  king.  Although  undoubtedly  wrong  in  considering  Bel- 
shazzar the  last  king  of  Babylon,  the  writer  of  Daniel  may  have 
been  influenced  in  this  particular  by  tradition.  Bdsarugwr  was 
the  son  of  the  last  king,  and  was  probably  in  command  of  the 
army  and  actively  concerned  in  the  conflict  with  the  invading 
Persians.  We  cannot  doubt  that  he  was  a  person  of  great  polit- 
ical prominence  in  the  empire,  and  it  is  even  possible  that  he 

18  It  may  not  be  uninteresting  to  note,  that  Havernick,  Dan.  176,  fol- 
lowing Vorstius,  Exercit.  Acad.  4  identified  this  final  feast  of  the  Book 
of  Daniel  with  the  2a/cd«z  which,  according  to  Athenseus  (Deipnosoph. 
xiv.  639)  corresponded  to  the  Saturnalia. 

19  In  the  Annals  of  Nabonidus,  iii.  8,  mention  is  made  of  a  religious 
festival  (the  New  Year's  feast)  which  took  place  probably  about  twelve 
months  before  the  capture  of  the  city.      This.  Andrea,  '  Beweis  des 
Glaubens,"88,  p.  257,  etc.,  believed  to  be  the  festival  of  the  Book  of 
Daniel ;  a  highly  improbable  theory. 

20  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  Babylonian  proper  names  in  Daniel 
seem  to  be  for  the  most  part  genuine,  although  of  course  it  cannot  be 
supposed  that  the  author  understood  their  meaning.     In  fact  we  know 
from  his  explanation  of  the  name  Belteshazzar  that  this  was  not  the 
case.     See  note  b  to  verse  12,  Appendix  II.     Compare  in  this  connection 
the  names  Arioch,  Belteshazzar,  and  Abednego  which  are  traceable 
to  a  Babylonian  origin,  and  see  further  Friedr.  Delitzsch  in  the  Pre- 
face to   Baer  and  Delitzsch,  Text  of  Ezra,  Noli,   and   Daniel.      It  is 
instructive  to  observe  here  the  difference  between  the  genuine  names 
in  Daniel  and  the  spurious  character  of  those  in  the  book  of  Judith, 
showing  tin-  sup<  riority  of  the  tradition  followed   by  the  author  of 
Daniel. 


may  have  been  possessed  of  ni<>re  influence  than  his  father.  If 
this  were  the  case,  a  legend  making  the  crown-prince  the  real 
king  is  easily  to  be  explained. 

The  author  of  Daniel  seems  to  be  approximately  correct 
concerning  the  death  of  Belshazzar.  The  Biblical  Belshazzar 
was  slain  on  the  eve  of  the  capture  of  the  city  by  the  Persians, 
and  it  is  extremely  likely  from  a  ne\v  reading  of  a  mutilated  pas- 
in  the  Annals  of  Xabonidus  (iii.,  1.  *2.-\\  that  B<'1*« I'ln-u ,• 
the  king's  son  met  his  death  soon  after  the  capture  of  Babylon 
by  ( 'yru>'s  forces.  If  the  reading  which  I  have  adopted  of  this 
passage  of  the  Annals  be  correct,  it  is  probable  that  after  the 
capture  of  Habylon,  Helshazzar  with  a  remnant  of  the  royal 
forces  made  a  last  despairing  resistance  which  was  crushed 
by  Cyrus's  general  (iobryas,  and  that  the  patriot  prince  thus 
met  his  death  at  the  hands  of  the  invader."  The  Annals  14-0  on 

D 

to  say  that  a  solemn  mourning  wa>  then  instituted,  probably 
by  order  of  ( 'yrus  himself. 

Of  course'  nothing  certain  about  this  event  can  be  known 
until  a  duplicate  text  be  discovered  which  shall  supply  the  mi>s- 
ing  words  of  the  mutilated  passage.  If  the  interpretation 
here  given  is  correct,  the  agreement  of  both  Herodotus  and 
Xenophon.  as  well  as  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  that  the  la>t  king 
of  Babylon  was  slain  at  the  time  of  the  capture  of  the  city, 
may  be  a  pel-version  of  this  account  of  the  death  of  the  king's 
son.  It  is  intLTe>ting  to  note  here  that  the  author  of  Isaiah 
xiv.  It),  clearly  expected  the  destruction  of  the  last  king  of 
Babylon  with  the  overthrow  of  the  city.  AVe  may  conclude, 
then,  that  in  the  ca>e  of  the  Hook  of  Daniel,  the  tradition 
which  the  author  followed  in  calling  the  last  king  IJelslmzzar, 

-'It  should  be  noticed  that  both  of  tlx-  Babylonian  rebels  against 
Darius  Hystaspis  g;m«  themselves  out  to  be  Nebuchadnezzar,  son  of 
Nabonidus.  This  certainly  seems  to  show  that  at  that  time  Belsaruqur, 
the  first  born  son  of  the  king,  was  generally  known  to  be  dead,  as 
otherwise  his  name  would  have  served  as  a  more  promising  catchword 
lor  rebellion  than  that  of  a  younger  prince.  According  to  Behistun,  1, 
16 ;  3,  13  ;  4,  2,  the  names  of  these  two  rebellious  chiefs  were  Nadin- 
tabel,  son  of  Amri.  who  seems  to  have  been  for  a  short  time  successful 
in  his  rebellion,  as  there  are  a  few  contracts  dating  from  the  first  year 
ot  Ins  n-i-n  (Iloinmel.  CJ-esch.  7*7.  n.  1).  and  Arakh  an  Armenian  son  of 
Handikes.  Nothing  is  known  of  this  Nebuchadnezzar,  son  of  Nabonidus. 
8 


58 

may  have  arisen  from  the  prominence  of  the  son  of  Nabonidus 
during  his  father's  reign,  and  perhaps  especially  towards  its 
close,  in  the  government  of  Babylon ;  and  that  the  statement  of 
IJolslmzzar's  death  about  the  time  of  the  capture  of  Babylon 
possibly  had  its  origin  in  the  death  of  the  king's  son  at  the 
hands  of  the  Persians. 

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

The  Book  of  Daniel  loses  none  of  its  beauty  or  force,  because 
we  are  bound  in  the  light  of  modern  criticism  to  consider  it  a 
production  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  nor  should 
conservative  scholars  exclaim  because  the  historical  accuracy 
of  the  work  is  thus  destroyed.  If  the  book  be  properly  under- 
stood it  must  be  admitted  that  the  author  made  no  pretence  at 
exactness  of  detail.  To  assert,  furthermore,  with  some  excellent 
Christian  divines  that  with  the  Book  of  Daniel  the  whole  pro- 
phetic structure  of  the  Old  Testament  rises  or  falls,  is  as  illogi- 
cal as  the  statement  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  that  he  who  denies 
Daniel's  prophecies  denies  Christianity  !  If  we  consider  that 
these  'prophecies'  were  never  intended  to  be  more  than  an 
historical  resume,  clothed  for  the  sake  of  greater  literary  vivid- 
ness in  a  prophetic  garb,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  such  a  con- 
clusion affects  the  authenticity  of  utterances  of  other  authors 
which  may  really  have  been  meant  to  be  predictions  of  the 
future.  If  viewed  in  the  proper  light,  the  work  of  the  writer 
of  Daniel  can  'certainly  not  be  called  a  forgery,  but,  as  men- 
tioned before,  merely  a  moral  and  political  pamphlet.  It 
should  certainly  be  possible  for  intelligent  Christians  to  con- 
sider the  book  just  as  powerful,  viewed,  according  to  the 
author's  intention,  as  a  consolation  to  God's  people  in  their 
dire  distress  at  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  as  if  it  were, 
what  an  ancient  but  mistaken  tradition  has  made  it,  really  an 
accurate  account  of  events  belonging  to  the  close  of  the  Baby- 
lonian period. 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

ADDITIONAL   NOTE  A. 

It  was  generally  recognized  by  the  ancients  that  the  Book  of  Daniel 
was  an  authentic  production.  The  references  in  the  New  Testament, 
(Matt,  xxiv.  15  ;  Mark  xiii.  14,  referring  to  Dan.  ix.  27  and  xii.  11)  ascribe 
the  book  especially  to  Daniel.  (/;/'.  also  Josephus,  x.  11,  7.)  In  Antt.  xi. 
Josephus  relates  the  oft-cited  fable  that  the  Prophecies  of  Daniel 
were  shown  to  Alexander  the  Great  <m  his  entry  into  Jerusalem. 

The  first  known  writer  who  doubted  the  authenticity  of  the  Book  of 
Daniel  was  the  Neo-Platonist,  Porphyrins,  (A.I).  :>0-li,  who  in  his  great 
work  of  fifteen  books  directed  against  the  Christians  (\<r,<>/  KOTO 
X/>/(7r/(iri,n-)  devoted  the  whole  twelfth  book  to  an  attack  on  Daniel, 
which  lie  declared  to  have  been  originally  in  Greek,  the  work  of  a 
Jew  of  the  time  of  Antiochns  Epiphanes.  Tin-  works  of  Porphyrius 
were  all  collected  and  burnt  by  orders  of  the  Emperors  Constantine 
and  Theodosins.  so  that  his  views  have  descended  to  posterity  only 
through  the  works  of  Jerome,  who  attempted  to  refute  his  arguments. 
According  to  the  statement  of  .Jerome,  he  was  also  answered  by 
Methodius,  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea  and  Kusebius  of  (';esarea. 

According  to  Origen.  the  pa.uan  Cel>us  i>  said  to  have  expressed  a 
doubt  concerning  the  truth  of  the  occurrences  described  in  Daniel. 
The  following  commentators  are  among  those  who  regarded  the  Book 
of  Daniel,  either  wholly  or  in  part,  as  belonging  to  the  time  of  Antio- 
chus  Kpiphanes  :  Collins,  "Scheme  of  literal  Prophecy  considered," 
London.  17215:  Semler.  '•  Untersucliun-eii  des  Canons."  iii.  50.');  Cor- 
rodi,  "  Yersuche  fiber  verschiedene  in  Theologie  und  Bibelkritik  ein- 
BChlagende  Gegenst&nde,"  Berlin.  17s::  :  •  Versuch  einer  Beleuchtung 
der  Geschichfe  des  ji'idisclien  und  Christlichen  Bibelkanons.'  vol.  i. 
Halle,  1792,  j>i>.  l^/.:  Eichhorn  :  '  Einl.  in  das  A.  T.',  3  und  4  Ausgabe  ; 
Bertholdt.  'Daniel;'  also  the  commentaries  of  Kirms,  'Commentatio 
historico-critica,'  Jena,  1828;  Redepenning.  1x33;  von  Lengerke,  ix;r>: 
Evvald  ;  Hitzig  ;  'Bunsen,  '  Gott  in  der  Qeschichte,'  i  Teil.  lsr>7.  }>/>. 
o<»2.  .")!  l,  .140  :  Li'tcke,  •  Yersuch  einer  vollst/indigen  1'Jiileitung  in  die 
Offenbarung  Johannis,'  ii.  Aufl.;  Bleek.  •  Kinleitung ':  Riehm,  '  Ein- 
leitung,'  ii.  292  :  Strack  in  Zockler's  '  Handbuch  der'Theolog.  Wiss.',  i. 
.  164,  165,  (see  also  Herzog,  Real  Encyclopaedic,2  vii.  419) ; 
Scldottmann,  'Compendium  der  Alttestamentlichen  Theologie,'  1W7 
and  1889  ;  Reuss.,  '  Geschichte  des  A.  T.',  1890,  pp.  592 /.;  C.  A.  Briggs, 
'  .Messianic  Prophecy,"  411 /.;  and  Driver,  '  Introd.',  p.  467. 

Among  the  defenders  of  the  authenticity  of  the  book  should  be 
mentioned  :  Liiderwald.  Die  Ii  ersten  Capitel  Daniels  nach  historischen 
Grimden  gcpri'ift  und  berichtigt,  17H7  ;  Jahn.  1880;  Dereser,  1H10 


60 

(answering    Be-rtholdt)  :  Pa  roan.  Tnstitutio  Interpret,  v.  i.:   Royaards, 

•  Over  den  (leest  I'll  het  belang  van  het  Boek  Daniel,'  Hag.  1821  ;  Sack  ; 
Ackermunn,  1*2!):   Ih'iigstenbi'rg.  1831;  Havernick  (answered  by  Droy- 
sen,  Geschichte  d«>r  Hellenen,  vol.  ii.  p.  346) ;  Ziindel,  1861  ;  Hilgenfeld, 
I*r,:',:  Kranirhfeld,  1868;  Keil ;  Franz  Delitzsoh  in  Real  Encyclopaedic, 
(first    Edition)  ml.  iii.:  C'aspari  ;  Pusey  :  Andrea,  Beweis  des  Glaubens, 

p.  241  /.:  Di'isterwald,  'Die  Weltreiche  und  das  Gottesreich  nach 
den  Weissagungeii  des  Propheten  Daniels,'  1890,  (reviewed  by  Siegfried, 

•  Thi'ologisrhe  Literatur  zeitung,'  10  Jan.  1891)  etc.,  etc. 

It  should  be  mentioned  that  Franz  Delitzsch,  in  the  second  edition  of 
Il<T7<><;'s  'Real  Encyclopa3die,'  vol.  vii.  pp.  469-479,  (1878)  had  greatly 
modified  his  views  regarding  the  time  when  the  book  of  Daniel  origi- 
nated. He  was  not  inclined  to  deny  the  possibility  of  a  MaccabaBan  ori- 
gin, and  even  said,  (p.  471)  that  the  book,  considered  as  an  apocalyptic 
work  of  the  Seleucidan  period,  had  more  claims  to  canonicity,  than  if 
it  were  a  product  of  the  Achsemenian  epoch  distorted  from  its  original 
form  by  later  hands. 


ADDITIONAL  NOTE  B. 

THE  UNITY  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 

The  Book  of  Daniel  must  be  regarded  as  a  unit.  Some  critics,  how- 
ever, have  believed  in  a  separate  origin  for  the  first  six  chapters. 
Thus  Sack,  Herbst  in  his  '  Einleitung  in's  A.  T.'  2  Theil,  2  Abteilung, 
pp.  104,  105,  and  Davidson  attributed  the  second  part  of  the  work  to 
Daniel,  but  regarded  the  first  six  chapters  as  an  introduction  to  the 
visions  written  by  a  later  Jew.  Eichhorn  ('  Einleitung,'  3d  and  4th  edi- 
tion.) believed  that  ch.  ii.  4-vi.  were  written  by  one  author  and  ch.  vii.- 
xii.  with  i.-ii.  3  by  another.  The  fact  that  from  ch.  ii.  4,  through 
ch.  vii.  the  book  is  written  in  Aramaean  has  not  unnaturally  influenced 
some  scholars  to  believe  that  the  Aramaean  portions  have  a  separate  ori- 
gin from  the  other  parts  of  the  w^ork.  Zockler,  for  example,  following 
some  of  his  predecessors,  such  as  Kranichfeld  ('  Daniel,'  p.  4),  con- 
sidered the  Arama3an  sections  as  extracts  from  a  contemporary  journal 
in  the  vernacular,  while  Driver  'Introduction,'  482,  3,  although  seeing 
the  strong  objections  to  such  a  view,  remarks  with  some  caution  that 
the  theory  of  a  separate  origin  for  these  parts  deserves  consideration. 
Meinhold,  'Dissertation, 'p.  38  and  '  Beitriige  zur  Erklarung  des  Biiches 
Daniel.'  :>2,  70,  believed  that  the  Arania3aii  portions  were  in  existence 
from  the  time  of  Alexander.  We  should  compare  in  this  connection 
Strack  (in  Zockler's  '  Handbuch.'  i.  165,)  who  inclines  to  this  view, 
although  admitting  that  the  book  at  present  forms  an  indivisible 
\vln ,le.  (See  also  Lenormaiit  '  Magie,'  Germ.  ed..  527,  5(J5).  This  idea 
should  he  kept  (|iiite  distinct  from  the  more  extreme  theory  of  La- 
L':mlc,  '  Mittheiliiiigen.'  iv.  :'>5I  (1S(.)1),  who,  commenting  on  the  opinion 
of. I.  I).  Mirh.-i'lis"  '  Orientalische  und  Kxe^etische  Hihliolhek,'  ii.  (1772), 


61 

p.  141,  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  consisted  of  a  number  of  parts  of 
separate  origin,  remarked  that  the  bilingual  character  of  the  work  is 
an  evidence  that  it  is  a  'Biindel  von  Flugblattern.'  (See  also  Gott. 
Gelehrte  Anzeigen,  1891,  pp.  497-520,  particularly  506-517.)  This  view 
of  Lagarde's  was  really  a  repetition  of  that  of  Bertholdt,  '  Daniel,' 
pp.  49^f.,  which  is  now  generally  rejected.  (See  Bleek,  '  Einleitung,'  p. 
415.  Delitzsch.  'Real  Encyclopadie,'  vii.2  471,  Reuss  'Geschichte,'  599, 
and  lately  Kamphausen,  'Das  Buch  Daniel  und  die  neuere  Geschichts- 
forschung  '  (1893),  p.  s. ) 

No  view  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  the  production  of  more  than  one 
author  is  consistent  with  the  uniform  character  of  the  entire  work. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Aramaean  chapters  are  not  altogether 
pure  narrative.  Chapter  ii.  for  example,  although  narrative  in  form, 
is  devoted  to  the  interpretation  of  the  dream  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
and  contains,  as  shown  above,  substantially  the  same  prophecies  as 
w<-  find  in  the  purely  apocalyptic  chapter  vii.  in  the  second  part 
of  the  work.  It  will  suffice  to  cite  one  other  striking  point  of  agree- 
ment between  the  two  sections.  The  allusion  in  chapter  ii.  43,  to  the 
mixing  of  iron  and  clay  is  clearly  to  be  understood  of  the  alliance  men- 
tioned in  ch.  xi.  6.  17  between  the  Seleucida1  and  the  Ptolemies.  (See 
Kamphausen,  op.  cit.,p.  8.) 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that,  chapter  vii..  the  beginning  of  the  sec- 
ond part,  is  certainly  as  apocalyptic  in  character  as  any  of  the  follow- 
ing sections.  Mori-over,  the  natural  division  of  the  hook  is  undoubtedly 
after  ch.  vi..  so  that  it'  the  difference  of  language  were  the  sign  of  a 
sepal-ale  origin  for  these  sections  \ve  would  expect  ch.  vii.,  the  begin- 
ning of  the  distinctly  apocalyptic  portion  to  he  in  Llehrew,  which,  how- 
ever. i>  not  the  case.  The  . \ranuean  seventh  chapter  belongs  as 
completely  to  the  following  Hehrew  apocalyptic  parts  as  the  Hebrew 
first  chapter  is  essentially  part  of  the  following  Arama-an  narrative 
sections,  tin  this  connection  see  Driver.  •Introduction.'  4N'J.)  There 
car.  lie  little  doubt  that  the  complete  interdependence  of  all  the  chap- 
ters is  such  that  the  entire  book  must  lie  regarded  ;is  the  work  of  a 
single  author. 

Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  explain  the  sudden  change  of 
language  in  ii.  4.  Some  commentators  thought  that  Aramaean  was  the 
vernacular  of  Babylonia  and  was  consequently  employed  as  the  lan- 
guage of  the  parts  relating  to  that  country.  (So  Kliefoth.  ISfJS.  •  Dan.', 
/>.  11.  and  Keil.  'Dan.'.  14.)  Such  a  view  is  of  course  no  longer  tenable, 
as  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  now  show  that  the  Babylonian  language 
was  in  use  until  quite  a  late  date.  The  latest  connected  inscription 
is  that  of  Antiochus  Soter  rjso-'jr.n  H.  Q.),  published  VR.  66,  and 
translated  by  Iviser  in  Schroder's  '  Keihnschriftl.  Bibl.',  iii.  2,  136. 
Xoldeke's  theory  advanced  in  his  In-ocJuirc  •  Die  Semitischen  Sprachen,' 
pp.  41  ff.,  that  the  Assyrian  language  died  as  a  spoken  idiom  shortly 
before  the  fall  of  \ineveh  seems  entirely  unfounded.  Gutbrod  refers 
in  the  Zt'ilwln-iJ't  fin-  As*///-,  vi.  '21.  to  a  brick  on  which  was  engraved 
in  Aram.-eati  and  Greek  letters  ,-i  proper  name  of  distinctly  Assyrian 


62 


character  :  nfcO"l3"T"lK  —  ^Adadvaitv&xtK.  (He  was  evidently  alluding 
to  one  of  the  bricks  of  Tello  of  which  there  are  some  examples  in  the 
museums  of  Paris  and  Berlin.  As  Dr.  Bezold,  editor  of  the  Zeitschrift, 
remarked  in  a  foot-note,  this  inscription  has  been  treated  by  De  Vogue 
and  Schrader  as  well  as  in  the  'Corpus  Inscriptionum  Semiticarum.' 
See  Schrader  '  Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek,'  iii.  2,  p.  142,  n.  1.)  When 
it  is  remembered  that  a  living  language  exercises  the  greatest  possible 
influence  on  the  formation  of  proper  names,  this  brick,  which  is  unfor- 
tunately undated,  would  seem  to  be  an  evidence,  as  Gutbrod  thinks, 
that  Assyrian  may  have  been  spoken  until  Hellenic  times.  It  is  there- 
fore of  course  clear  that  the  Aramaean  could  certainly  not  have  been 
the  vernacular  of  Babylonia  even  as  late  as  the  time  of  the  author  of 
Daniel.  As  a  literary  language,  indeed,  Assyrian  may  well  have  sur- 
vived as  late  as  the  second  century  after  Christ.  (See  Gutbrod,  op.  cit., 
p.  29  jf.) 

With  regard  to  the  Book  of  Daniel,  it  is  equally  unconvincing  to  sup- 
pose with  Merx  that  Aramaean,  as  the  popular  tongue  of  the  period 
when  the  book  was  written,  was  used  for  the  narrative  parts,  and 
Hebrew,  as  the  more  learned  language,  for  the  philosophical  portions  ; 
because  ch.  i.  which  is  just  as  much  in  the  narrative  style  as  the  fol- 
lowing Aramaean  sections,  is  in  Hebrew,  while  the  distinctly  apoca- 
lyptic ch.  vii.  is  in  Aramsean. 

A  third  supposition  that  the  bilingual  character  of  the  work  points  to 
a  time  when  both  Hebrew  and  Aramaean  were  used  indifferently  is  cer- 
tainly strange,  as  it  is  very  questionable  if  two  languages  can  ever  be 
used  quite  indifferently.  A  hybrid  connected  work  in  two  idioms 
would  be  a  monstrosity.  (For  this  opinion  cf.  Bertholdt,  '  Daniel,' 
p.  15,  and  later  Havernick.  Franz  Delitzsch,  '  Real  Encyclopaedic,'  iii. 
272,  and  vii.2  470,  followed  substantially  the  same  theory,  considering 
the  change  to  be  due  to  the  Aramaic  answer  of  the  Chaldees  in  ch.  ii.  4.) 

Huetius  ('  Demoiistr.  Evang.',  472,  quoted  by  Bertholdt,  'Daniel,' 
p.  51),  believed  that  the  entire  work  was  written  originally  in  Aramaean 
and  subsequently  translated  into  Hebrew.  In  the  troubled  Seleucidan 
period,  he  thought  that  the  Hebrew  edition  was  partly  destroyed  and 
the  missing  portions  supplied  from  the  original  Aramaean.  This  theory, 
although  very  ingenious,  does  not,  however,  commend  itself  as  the 
most  satisfactory  explanation. 

.  Bertholdt,  '  Daniel,'  v.  2,  in  commenting  on  Huetius'  view  has  hit 
upon  what  seems  the  best  solution  of  the  problem,  but  unfortunately 
did  not  adopt  it.  He  remarked,  with  perhaps  a  touch  of  sarcasm,  that 
it  had  not  yet  occurred  to  any  one  to  consider  the  Aramaean  text  as  a 
translation  and  the  Hebrew  as  the  original.  In  view  of  the  apparent 
unity  of  the  entire  work,  which  Bertholdt  did  riot  recognize,  no  other 
explanation  of  the  bilingual  character  of  the  book  seems  possible. 
The  book  was  probably  written  originally  at  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  all  in  Hebrew  :  but  for  the  convenience  of  the  general  reader 
whose  laMgimgj'  was  Aram;eaii,  a  translation,  possibly  from  the  same 
pen  as  the  original,  was  made  into  (he  Aram;ean  vernacular.  \Ye  must 


63 

suppose,  then,  that  certain  parts  of  the  original  Hebrew  manuscript 
being  lost,  the  missing  places  were  supplied  from  the  current  Aramaean 
translation.  This  theory,  which  is  that  of  Lenormant,  '  Magie  '  (Germ, 
ed.,  p.  527),  has  been  also  adopted  by  Bevan,  the  latest  commentator 
on  our  book,  in  his  '  Daniel'  (1892) pp.  27 ff.  I  cannot  agree  in  this  con- 
nection with  Kauiphausen,  op.  cit.  14,  note,  who  rejects  this  hypothesis 
on  the  ground  that  the  author  of  Daniel  evidently  fell  into  the  error  of 
regarding  '  Chaldsean '  as  the  language  of  Babylonia,  and  consequently 
deliberately  wrote  in  it  those  sections  applying  more  especially  to 
Babylon,  reserving  the  Hebrew  for  the  more  solemn  prophetic  parts. 
Kamphausen  does  not  explain,  however,  any  more  than  his  predecessors 
in  this  opinion,  why  the  apocalyptic  Aramaic  chapter  vii.,  which  is 
indivisible  from  the  succeeding  prophetic  Hebrew  portions,  is  in  Ara- 
maean instead  of  in  Hebrew. 


ADDITIONAL    NOTE   C. 


The  most  important  references  to  /.V/xar^c/'/-  in  the  published  con- 
tracts are  the  following  :— 

(a)  Strassmaier.  •  Nabonidus/   is  4.   when-  mention  is  made  of  Nuhu- 
nkni-<i.ri  xipii-i  *n.  Bcl^inn-in-  nun-  *///•/•/.      •  X.  the  scribe  of  B.  the  son 
of  the  king.'     Dated  25th  Nisan,  fifth  year  of  Xabonidns.     Translation 
'Records  of  the  Past/  Xew  Series,  iii.  12  \  /. 

(b)  Boseawen,  'Babylonian  and  Oriental  Record/  ii.  17.  IS;   Revillout 
'  Obligations  en  Droits  Egyptians,'  p.  895.  .  .  .  Strassraaier,  Congress  de 
Leide/  no.  SI).  Tablet  S      :!'J'.l.  ;!>.  i  1,  17.  mention  of  the  same  person,  and 
of  \(tl>ti.-{'(iln'f-(fi'i(<:,  the  major-  lomo  of  lic/xtirHrur,  the  son  of  the  king. 
Dated    seventh    year    of    Xabonidus.       Boseawen    concludes    from    the 
mention    of  these   especial    servants   of   the    king's  son    so  early  in  his 
father's  reign  that  the  prince  must  have  been  born  before  the  accession 
of  NabonidllS,  a  conclusion   hardly  wan-anted   by  the  premise^.  as  the 
exact  age  when  a  king's  son  had  his  separate   household    is  not  known. 

It  should  be  remarked,  however,  that  if  /ii-l.^irnrin-  were  in  command 
of  the  army  in  the  seventeenth  and  last  year  of  "his  father's  reign,  the 
prince  was  probably  older  than  seventeen.  Compare  also  in  this  con- 
nection the  statement  recorded  below,  that  in  the  first  year  of  Nabonidus 
a  plot  of  ground  was  sold  to  a  servant  of  li<>l*<i  riirnr  for  his  lord. 

(c)  Strassmaier  •  Xabonidus.'  ">si.    Translation  :  '  Records  of  the  Past,' 
iii.   124-125.   mention  of  Nabu-$&bit-qdte  the  Btew&rd  of  Betearuqur  the 
•  im'ir  Harris    Dated  eleventh  year  of  Nabonidus. 

(d)  Strassmaier,  •  Nabonidus,1  688.    Translation,  '  Records  of  the  Past,' 
iii.  124,  —  allusion  to  same  official.     Dated  sixth  year. 

(e)  Strassmaier,  '  Nabonidus,'  662.     Translation  by  Zehnpfund   '  Bei- 
tr<"«jcznr  Axxyr.\  i.  527,  no.  25,  a  list  of  garments.     5  gubdt  esirti  ana 
xuba  5a  kurtm/motc  *<irri  7it.'l.^n-nrnr.     Dated  twelfth  year.     This  is  the 
only  allusion  to  the  king's  son  known  to  me,  where  he  is  not  especially 
called  inur  Min-i.     The  omission  of  the  title  in  tlr's  case  was  probably 
because  the  mention  of  the  r.oyal  steward  shows  who  is  meant. 


64 


Uosrawcn.  •  Hul>yl<mi;»n  and  Oriental  Record.'  ii.  17,  n.  1.  Record 
of  an  offering  made  by  the  son  of  the  king  in  Ebarra.  Dated  seventh 
year. 

X<ilni-('(tbit-(jrit('  (Nebo  seizes  the  hands)  was  the  name  of  the  major- 
domo  of  Neriglissar  (Nebuchadnezzar,  34,  2/6,  1,  5,  see  Strassmaier, 
k  Alphabetisches  Worterverzeichniss,')  and  of  his  son  LabaSi-Marduk 
(Neriglissar,  2,  10/6,  2.  See  '  Bab.  and  Or.  Record,'  ii.  44,  48).  The 
steward  of  Belxarugur  may  be  the  same  person. 

To  the  contracts  just  mentioned  should  be  added  the  two  references 
to  £el8aru$ur  treated  of  by  Pinches,  Independent,  Aug.  15,  1889  : 

(a)  Sale  of  a  plot  of  ground  by  Marduk-eriba  to  Bel-resua,  servant  of 
BelSaritgur  son  of  the  king.     Dated  26  Ve-Adar,  first  year  of  Nabonidus. 

(b)  The  record  of.  a  small  tablet  from  Sippar  that  Esaggila-rdmat, 
daughter  of  the  king  (Nabonidus),  paid  her  tithe  to  Samas  through  Bel- 
x<inirur.     Dated  5th  of  Ab,  seventeenth  (last)  year  of  Nabonidus.     This 
payment  took  place  in  the  month  before  Sippar  was  captured  by  the 
Persians.     Pinches,  op.  cit.,  believing  that  it  had  already  been  taken 
by  the  forces  of  Cyrus,  tries  to  show  that  the  city  must  have  been 
retaken  by  the  Babylonians.     Sippar  was  not  taken  by  the  Persians 
until  the  14th  of  Tammuz  of  Nabonidus'  17th  year. 

The  attempt  of  Boscawen,  Transactions  of  the  Society  for  Biblical 
Archaeology,  ii.  27,  28,  (followed  by  Andrea,  Beweis  des  Glaubens,  1888, 
250,  Cheyne,  '  Encycl.  Britannica.'  vi.  803,  etc.,)  to  identify  Marduk- 
sarugur,  whose  fifth  year  he  thought  he  had  discovered  on  a  tablet,  with 
Belsarugur  is  unsuccessful.  The  contract  to  which  the  reference  was 
made  belongs  to  the  time  of  Neriglissar.  See  Tiele  '  Geschichte,'  476, 
Strassmaier,  '  Congres  de  Leide,'  n.  115,  p.  586. 


APPENDIX    I. 


THE   CYRUS   CYLINDER   AND    THE   ANNALS    OF 
NABONIDUS. 

The  Cyrus  Cylinder  is  written  on  a  barrel  cylinder  of  unbaked  clay, 
nine  inches  long,  three  and  a  quarter  inches  in  end  diameter  and  four 
and  one-eighth  inches  in  middle  diameter.  It  was  reported  by  Hor- 
muzd  Hassani  in  the  Victoria  Institute,  Febr.  2nd,  1881,  as  being  the 
official  account  of  the  capture  of  Babylon. 

The  text  of  the  inscription  was  published  in  1880  by  Pinches  on  the 
35th  plate  of  the  fifth  volume  of  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson's  Cuneiform 
Inscriptions  of  Western  Asia,  and  lately  in  Abel-Winckler's  Keilsehrift- 
texte,  Berlin,  1890,  pp.  44  if.  The  first  treatment  of  the  inscription,  cm- 
bracing  transliteration,  translation  and  commentary,  was  published  by 
Sir  II.  Hawlinsoii.  .Journal  of  the  Uoyal  Asiatic  Society,  XII2,  7<>  !>7. 
1880.  Since  that  time  translations  have  been  ^ivm  by  Saycc.  '  Fresh 
Light  from  the  Ancient  Monuments.'  pp.  172  fi'.;  Flnigl.  '  Cyrus  und  Her- 
odot,'  1881,  which  is  based  on  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson's  work  ;  lv  Babelon, 
Les  inscriptions  cunciformes  relatives  a  la  prise  de  Uabylone  par 
Cyrus.  Paris,  1881  ;  Halevy.  Mclan  rus  et  le  lletour  de  la 

Captivite,'  pp.  4  tt'.:  Tiele,  l  Assyrische  und  I>abylonisdie  ( Jeschiclite,' 
p.  470ft'.  a  paraphrase:  Iloinmel.  ( lesehirhte  A-syriens  und  Habylo- 
niens;'  Eberhard  Schrader,  l  Keilinschriftlidie  Bibliothek,' III,  pt.  2, 
pp.  120  127,  a  transliteration  and  translation  based  on  a  collation  from  a 
photograph;  Friedrich  I>elit/sch  in  M urdter's  Geschichte  Babyloniens 
und  Assyriens,  1891.  pp.  2-")!)  tl'.  a  paraphrase  ;  ( ).  K.  llaucn,  '  Beitrage 
zur  Assyriologie,'  II,  pp.  20.")  if.  is'.H.  transliteration,  translation  and 
commentary  from  an  entirely  new  collation,  and  finally  Sayce,  Records 
of  the  Past,  V,  new  series,  pp.  144  ft'.,  a  new  translation.  A  translitera- 
tion of  the  cuneiform  text  is  given  in  Lyon's  .Manual,  pp.  !->M-41. 

The  Annals  of  Nabonidus  are  eiiirravrd  upon  a  gray  fragment  of 
unbaked  clay  in  double  columns  front  and  back.  The  tablet,  as  we 
have  it,  is  about  four  inches  high  and  three  and  a  half  inches  in 
breadth.  For  the  exact  measurements  see  Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie, 
II,  206.  Notice  of  the  inscription  was  given  by  T.  G-.  Pinches  in  1880, 
in  the  Transactions  of  the  Society  for  Biblical  Archeology,  pp.  139, 
17i:.  (See  also  Athenaeum,  1881,  p.  215,  an  article  by  Sir  Henry  Raw- 
linson  who  considered  it  the  Annals  of  Cyrus,  and  Sayce,  Academy, 
March  i:j.  1  ssi,  XVII,  198). 


66 

The  text  of  the  document  is  given  by  Winckler,  Untersuchungen 
zur  altorientalischen  Geschichte,  1889,  p.  154,  and  again  lately  from 
a  fresh  collation  by  0.  E.  Hagen,  1891,  op.  cit.  pp.  248  ff.  whose  copy 
differs  but  very  slightly  from  that  of  Winckler. 

The  first  translation  of  the  inscription  which  was  made  by  Mr. 
I 'indies,  appeared  in  the  Transactions  of  the  Society  for  Biblical 
Archeology,  VII,  1882,  pp.  153-169,  and  was  accompanied  by  an 
introduction,  transcription  and  notes.  The  same  scholar  submitted 
linos  1-4  of  column  II  to  a  new  collation,  the  result  of  which  appeared 
in  the  Proceedings  of  the  same  Society,  V,  10. 

Translations  and  paraphrases  of  the  document  have  been  given  by 
the  authors  mentioned  above  as  having  presented  translations,  etc.  of 
the  Cyrus  Cylinder,  the  most  important  being  that  of  0.  E.  Hagen, 
Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie,  II,  215  ff.,  with  full  commentary. 

The  greater  part  of  the  following  translation  and  commentary,  which 
is  not  based  on  a  fresh  collation,  was  made  before  Dr.  Hagen's  excel- 
lent work  appeared.  As  his  essay  depends,  however,  on  a  new  and 
careful  collation  of  both  documents,  I  have  had  no  hesitation  in  adopt- 
ing in  many  passages  his  readings  and  in  some  cases  the  translations 
suggested  by  him.  In  every  such  instance  due  credit  has  been  given 
to  the  source  from  which  I  drew. 


THE   CYRUS   CYLINDER. 

DIVIDED    TRANSLITERATION. 

1 

[um-ma-]ni-su 

2 

(ki)-ib-ra-tim 

3      

(-ka  gal)  ma-tu1-!!  is-sak-na  ana  e-nu-tu  ma-ti-su 

4  si (ta-am-)si-li 

u-sa-as-ki-na  ci-ru-su-un 

5  ta-am-si-li  E-saggil  i-te-(ni-ip-pu-us2) ana  Uri  u  si- 

it-ta-a-tim  ma-xa-za 

6  pa-ra-ac  la  si-ma-a-ti-su-nu  ta3 li  u-mi-sa-am-ma  id-di-ni-ib-bu- 

ub  li  ana  (na)*-ak-ri-tim 

7  sat-tuk-ku    u-sab-ti-li  u-ad5-di-(ma) (is-)tak-ka-an    ki-rib    ma- 

xa-za  pa-la-xa  Marduk  Sar  ilani  (Sa-)6qi-Se  a-su-us-sii 

i  V  R.  and  Winckler  Keilschrifttexte  lu.    Hagen,  Beitrage  II,  208,  reads  lu. 

a  So  Hagen,  op.  cit.  208. 

i  tu-i?tu  (?). 

<  So  St.rassiiiiiHM-  and  Pinches,  cf.  Hagen  op.  cit. 

In  V  K.  and  Winckler'sKeilschriittexto,  la.    Hagen  corrects  t<>  ml. 
e  Thus  Hagen's  collation. 


li-mu-ut-ti  ali-su  (i-te)-ni7-ip-pu-(us)  u-nii-sa-am-ma.  .  .(nise)-su  ina      8 
ab-sa-a-ni  la  ta-ap-su-ux-tim  u-xal-li-iq  kul-lat-si-in. 

A-na  ta-zi-im-ti-si-na  Bel  ilani  ez-zi-is  i-gu-ug-(ma) ki-su-ur-su-      9 

un  ilani  a-si-ib  lib-bi-su-nu  e-zi-bu  ad-ma-an-su-un 

ina  ug-ga-ti  sa  u-se-ri-bi  a-na  ki-rib  Babili*.     Marduk  ina  Si9 10 

li  sa-ax-ra  a-na  nap-xar  da-ad-mi  sa  in-na-du-u  su-bat-su-un 

u  nise  matSu-me-ri  u  Akkadi  sa  i-inu-u  sa-lam-ta-as  u-sa-ax-xi-ir    11 

ka si   ir-ta-si  ta-a-a-ra.     Kul-lat  ma-ta-a-ta  ka-li-si-na  i-xi-it 

ib-ri-e-su 

is-te-'-e-ma  ma-al-ki  i-sa-ru  bi-bil  lib-bi  sa  it-ta-ma-ax  qa-tu-us-su.     12 

mKu-ra-as   sar    aiAn-sa-an    it-ta-bi    ni-bi-it-su    a-na    ma-li-ku-tim 

kul-la-ta  nap-xar  i-zak-ra  sii-(uni-su).10 

"1:ll<,)u-ti-i  gi-mir  Um-inan-man-da  u-ka-an-ni-sa  a-na  se-i»i-sii  nise     13 

gal-mat qaqqadi  sa  u-sa-ak-si-dn  qa-ta-a --M 

i-na  ki-it-tim  u  rni-sa-ru  is-te-ni-'-e-si-na-a-tim.     Marduk  belu  rabu     14 

ta-ru-u  nise-su  ip-se-e-ti-sa  dainn-qa-a-ta  li  lib-ba-su  i-sa-ra  xa-di-is 

ip-pa-li-ia 

a-na   ali-su   Babili12   a-la-ak-sii   i<|-bi  u-isa-ay-bi-it-su-nia  xar-ra-nu     15 

BabiliK!  ki-nia  ib-ri  li  tap-pi-e  it-tal-la-ka  i-da-aSu. 

Qm-ma-ni-Su  rap-5a-a-tim  >a  ki -ma  mc-c  nai-i  la  u-ta-ad-du-u  ni-ba-    16 

su-un  kakkc-^u-iiii  ra  an-du-ma  i->a-ad-di-xa  i-da 

ba-lu   <{al)-li   u  ta-xa  /i    a-Se-ri-ba-aS    ki-ril.   l»abilis   al-Au    Babili12     17 

i-ti-ir   ina    sap-sa-qi.    '"Nabfi-na'id  sarri   la  pa-li-xi-sii  u-ma-al-la-a 

qa-tu-n 

ni^c   Babili13  ka-li--u-nu  nap-xar  matSii-mr-ri   u   Akkadi  ru-bi-e   u     18 

sak-kan-nak-ka  Sa-pal-Su  ik-mi-sa  a-na-aS-Si-qu  sc-pii-us-^u  ix-du-u 

a-na  SarPU-U-ti-Su  im-nii-ru  )ia-iui-iis-^u-iin 

be-lu  sa  i-na  tu-kul-ti-sa  u-bal-li-m   mi  tu-ta-an  i-na  pu-ta-qii  u  pa-     19 

ki-e  iii--ini-lii  knl-la-ta-an   ta-bi-is  ik-ta-ar-ra-lui-;n   i-  raiii-ma-ru  zi- 

ki-ir-§u. 

A-na-ku  "'Ku-ra-ai  >ar  ki;  -at  ;arrn  rabu  iarni  dan-mi  sar  l>a)»ilii:!     1^1 

;ar  mritsii-nie-ri  u  Ak-ka-di-5  sar  kib-ra-a-ti  ir-bi-it-tim  ; 

mar  n'Ka -ain-l)ii-/.i-ia    >arrn    rabu  sar  '''An-^a-an   mar   mai'i    IMKu-     21 

ra-as  sarru  ral)A  sjir  "?An--a-an   lip-pal-pal  '"Si-i-pi  is   iarru   rabn 

sar  ^''An-sa-an  ; 

y.oru   da-rii-u   >a   >arrii-u-tu   sa    IJT'l  u   Xabu.  ir-a-mn  pa-la-a-su  a-na     22 

tu-ub    lib-bi-.iii-nu     ix-si-xa    (sarru)-ut-sit.      Ivnn-ma    (a-na    ki-rib) 

Babili115  c-ru-bu  sa-li-mi-is 

^  1  adopt  Hagen's  correction  to  711.    The  halt  ot  the  original  may  have  been  a 
mistake  of  the  scribe. 
»  Su-an-nu-ki. 

9  So  V  K.  and  Winckler.    Hagen  reads  ti. 

10  Traces  not  clear. 

11  So  Winckler.    V  K.  has  '  nin-su.' 
Ka-dingir-meJ-ki. 

is  Tin-tir-ki. 


68 

23  i-iiii  ul-gi  u  ri-sa-a-tim  i-na  okalli  ina-al-ki  ar-ma-a   su  hat  be-lu-tim 
Marduk  belu  rabu  lib-bi  ri-it-pa-su  sa  mare  Babili13  u. . .  .an-ni-ma 
u-mi-sam  a-se-'-a  pa-la-ax-14su. 

24  Um-ma-ni-ia  rap-sa-a-tim  i-na  ki-rib  Babili13  i-sa-ad-di-xa  su-ul-ma- 
nis.  Nap-xar  (Su-me-ri)  u  Akkadi  zeru  rabu  (na-ak)-ri-tim  ul  u-sar-si 

25  ki-rib  Babili15  u  kul-lat  ma-xa-zi-su  i-na  sa-li-im-tim  as-te-'-e  mare 

Babili13 ki  ma-la  lib-(bi). . .  .ma  ab-sa-a-ni  la  si-ma-ti-su-nu  su- 

bat-su-nu 

26  an-xu-ut-su-un    u-pa-as-si-xa    u-sa-ap-ti-ir    sa-ar-ba-su-nu.     A-na 
ip-se-e-ti16. . .  .Marduk  belu  rabu-u  ix-di-e-ma 

27  a-na  ia-a-ti  mKu-ra-as  sarru  pa-li-ix-su  u  Ka-am-bu-zi-ia  mar  gi-it 
lib-bi ap. . .  -17  um-ma-ni-ia 

28  da-am-qi-is  ik-ru-ub-ma  i-na  sa-lim-tim  ma-xar-sa  ta-bi-is  ni-it-ta- 
['-du  iluti-su(?)]18  §ir-ti. 

29  Nap-xar  sarri  a-si-ib  parakke  sa  ka-li-is  kib-ra-a-ta  is-tu  tam-tim 

e-li-tim  a-di  tam-tim  sap-li-tim   a-si-ib sarrani  mat  A-xar-ri-i 

a-si-ib  kus-ta-ri  ka-li-su-un 

30  bi-lat-su-nu   ka-bi-it-tim  u-bi-lu-nim-ma  ki-ir-ba  Babili8  u-na-as- 
si-qu  se-pu-u-a.     Is-tu a-di  Assur  li  Susinakkil9 

31  A-ga-ne-fci  matEs-nu-nak  aiZa-am-ba-an  aiMe-tur-nu  Dur-iluki  a-di 
pa-at  matQu-ti-i  ma-xa-(zasa  e-bir20)-ti  narDigiat2i  §a  is-tu  ap-na-ma 
na-du-u  su-bat-su-un 

32  ilani  a-si-ib  lib-bi-su-nu  a-na  as-ri-su-nu  u-tir-ma  u-sar-ma-a  su-bat 
dara22-a-ta.    Kul-lat  nise-su-nu  u-pa-ax-xi-ra-am-ma  u-te-ir  da-ad- 
mi-su-un 

33  li  ilani  "J^Su-me-ri  u  Akkadi  sa  Nabu-na'id  a-na  ug-ga-tim  bel 
ilani  u-se-ri-bi  a-na  ki-rib  Babili8  i-na  qi-bi-ti  Marduk  belu  rabu 
i-na  sa-li-im-tim 

34  i-na  mas-ta-ki-su-un  u-se-si-ib  su-ba-at  tu-ub  lib-bi.    Kul-la-ta  ilani 
sa  u-se-ri-bi  a-na  ki-ir-bi  ma-xa-ze-su-un 

35  u-mi-Sa-am  ma-xar  Bel  u  Nabu  sa  a-ra-ku  ume-ia  li-ta-mu-u  lit-tas- 
ka-ru   a-ma-a-ta  du-un-qi-ia  u  a-na  Marduk  beli-ia  li-iq-bu-u  sa 
mKu-ra-as  sarru  pa-li-xi-ka  u  mKa-am-bu-zi-ia  mari-su 

36  da su-nu  lu-u (matati)  ka-li-si-na  su-ub-ti  ni-ix-tim  u-se- 
si-ib 

.'.'.  .'.V.'.YuS)  'TUR-XU-MBS  a  TU-KIL-XU-MBS! 

38     

...    (ad-ma-)  na-su  du-un-nu-nim  as-te-'-ma 

14  Evidently  ax — cf.  Hagen  op.  cit.,  210.    V  R.  has  tu. 

is  Ka  dingir-ra-ki. 

IB  Hagcn  op.  cit.  p.  212  reads  :  a-na  ib-se-e-ti-(ia  dani-qa-tim?) 

17  Hagen:  '  u  a-na  na-ap-xar.' 

i«  So  Hagen  and  the  most  probable  reading. 

19  See  Beitrage  II.  233.  Suggestion  of  Belitzsch. 

20  This  is  the  most  probable  restoration  of  the  text.    See  Beitriige,  II,  p.  212. 

21  BAR.    TIK.    KAR. 
2JDA.    ER. 


69 

39 


u  si-pi-ir-su 

40 

.  -  su-un  Babili8 

41 

si-in 

42 

si-na 

43 

bit 

, . .  -tim 

44 


45 

(dara)-a-tim^2 


70 


THE  CYRUS  CYLINDER. 

CONSECUTIVE  TRANSLITERATION. 
1 

umnianisu  (?) 

2 

kibratim 

3 

matu  issakna  ana  enutu  matisu4  si 

tamsili  usaskina  cirusun5  tamsili  Esaggil  etenippus 

ana  Uri  u  sittatim  inaxaza  6para§  la  simatisunu  ta li 

umisamma  iddinibbub  ana  nakritim  7sattukku  usabtili  u'addima 

istakkan  qirib  maxaze,  palaxa  Marduk  sar  ilani  saqise 

asussu  8limutti  alisu  etenippus  umiSamma (nise)su  ina  abSani 

la  tapsuxtiin  uxalliq  kullatsin.  9Ana  tazimtisina  Bel  ilani  ezzis 

egug(ma) kisursun,  ilani  asib  libbisun  ezibu  admansun  10ina 

uggati  sa  useribi  ana  qirib  Babili.  Marduk  ina  si li  saxra  ana 

napxar  dadmi  sa  innadu  subatsun  lli\  nise  matSumeri  u  Akkadi  sa  emu 
salamtas  usaxxir  ka. . . .  si  irtasi  tara. 

Kullat  matata  kalisina  ixit  ibresu  12iste'nia  malki  isaru  bibil  libbi 
sa  ittamax  qatussu.  Kuras  sar  ai  Ansan  ittabi  nibitsu,  ana  malikutim 
kullata  napxar  izakra  sumsu.  13matQuti  gimir  Ummanmanda  ukan- 
nisa  ana  sepisu,  nise  galmat  qaqqadi  sa  uisaksidu  qatasu  14ina  kittim 
u  misaru  isteni  'esinatim. 

Marduk  belu  rabu  tarii  nisesu  ipsetisa  damqata  u  libbasu  isara  xadis 
ippalis  15ana  alisu  Babili  alaksu  iqbi  usa^bitsuma,  xarranu  Babili  kima 
ibri  u  tappe  ittalaka  idasu.  16Ummanisu  rapsatiin  sa  kima  me  nari  la 
utaddu  nibasun,  kakkesunu  ganduma  isaddixa  idasu  17balu  qabli  u 
taxazi  useribas  qirib  Babili,  alsu  Babili  etir  ina  sapsaqi.  Nabuna'id 
sarri  la  palixisu  umala  qatussu. 

18Nise  Babili  kalisunu  napxar  matSumeri  u  Akkadi v  rube  u  sakkan- 
nakka  sapalsu  ikmisa,  unassiqu  sepussu,  ixdu  ana  sarrutisu,  immiru 
panussun.  19Belu  sa  ina  tukultisa  uballitu  mitutan  ina  putaqu  u 
pake  igmilu  kullatan  tabis  iktarrabusu  istammaru  zikirsu. 


THE  CYRUS  CYLINDER. 

TRANSLATION. 

1 

his  troops  (?) 


ruinous :!a  weak  one 

was  appointed  to  the  government  of  his  land 4a  similar  one 

he  caused  to  be  over  them.  :'like  Esaggil  he  made unto  Ur  and 

the  rest  of  the  cities  ''a  command  unbefitting  them. . .  .daily  he  planned 
in  enmity  7he  allowed  the  regular  offering  to  cease.  He  appointed 

was  done  in  the  cities.  :is  for  the  veneration  for  Marduk, 

king  of  the  gnds.  he  <lestroye<l  its 8evil  against  his  city  he  did 

daily his  (people)  under  a  yoke  which  .nave  them  no  rest  he 

ruined  all  of  them.  "At  their  laments  the  lord  of  the  nods  was  furi- 
ously wroth their  side.  The  gods  dwelling  in  the  midst  of 

them  left  their  abodes  Ioin  aiiirer  that  he  had  caused  I  strange  deities)  to 

enter  into  Babylon.  Marduk  in turned  (?)  to  all  the  dwellings 

whose  abode  \vas  established  nand  the  people  of  Sinner  and  Akkad 
who  resembled  corpses4  he  turned he  ^ranted  mercy. 

Through  all  the  lands  altogether  he  looked,  he  saw  him.  and  ^'sought 
tlie  righteous  prince,  the  favourite  of  his  In-art,  whose  hand  he  took. 
Cyrus  king  of  Ansan.  he  called  by  name,  to  the  kingdom  of  every- 
thing created  he  appointed  him.  1;;Outu.  the  entire  tribe  of  the  Tin- 
man Manda  he  made  bow  at  his  feet  ;  as  for  the  people  of  the  dark 
heads  whom  he  (.Marduk)  caused  his  ((Vrus')  hands  to  conquer,  14in 
justice  and  right  he  cared  for  them. 

Marduk  the  nreat  Lord,  merciful  (?)  to  hi.-  people,  looked  with  pleas- 
ure on  his  pious  works  and  upright  heart,  '-"'unto  his  city  Babylon 
he  commanded  him  to  go,  he  caused  him  to  take  the  road  to  Baby- 
lon going  by  his  side  as  a  friend  and  companion.  16His  extensive 
army,  the  number  of  which  like  the  water-  of  a  river  cannot  he  known, 
with  weapons  girded  on.  proceeded  beside  him.  17without  strife  and 
battle  he  let  him  enter  into  Babylon,  he  spared  his  city  Babylon  in  (its) 
calamity.  Nabonidus,  the  king,  who  reverenced  him  not,  he  delivered 
into  his  hand.  18A11  the  people  of  Babylon,  all  Sumer  and  Akkad, 
lords  and  governors  bowed  before  him,  kissed  his  feet,  rejoiced  at  his 
coming  to  the  throne,  their  faces  were  happy.  19The  Lord,  who  by 
his  power  brings  the  dead  to  life,  who  is  universally  benevolent  with 
care  and  protection,  they  blessed  joyously,  reverencing  his  name, 

*  i.  e.  might  as  well  be  dead. 


72 

20Anaku  Kuras,  sar  kissat,  sarru  rabu,  sarru  dannu,  sar  Babili 
sar  mftt8umeri  u  Akkadi  sar  kibrati  erbittim  21mar  Kambuziya,  sarru 
rabu,  sar  aiAnsan,  mar  mari  Kuras,  sarru  rabu,  sar  aiAnsan,  lippalpal 
Sispis,  sarru  rabu,  sar  aiAnsan,  22zeru  daru  sa  sarruti  sa  Bel  u  Nabu 
iramu  palasu  ana  tub  libbisunu  ixsixa  (sarrut)su.  Enuma  (ana  qirib) 
Babili  erubu  salimis,  23ina  ulgi  u  risatim,  ina  ekalli  malki  arma  subat 

belutim,  Marduk  belu  rabu  libbi  ritpasu  sa  mare  Babili  u annima 

umisam  ase'a  palaxsu.  24Ummaniya  rapsatim  ina  qirib  Babili  isaddixa 
sulmanis.  Napxar  (Sumeri)  u  Akkadi  zeru  rabu  (nak)ritim  ul  uSarsi, 

25qirib  Babili  u  kullat  maxazesu  ina  salimtim  aste'  mare  Babili 

ki  mala  lib(bi). . .  .ma  absani  la  simatisunu  subatsunu  26anxutsunu 
upassixa  usaptir  sarbasunu. 

Ana  epseti. . .  .Marduk  belu  rabu  ixdema,  27ana  iati  Kuras,  sarru 

palixsu  u  Kambuziya  mar  §it  libbi  (u  ana  napxar)  ummaniya,  28dam- 
qis  ikrubma,  ina  salimtim  maxarsa  tabis  nitta'  (du  ilutisu  ?)  §irti. 

29Napxar  sarri  asib  parakke,  sa  kalis  kibrata,  istu  tamtim  elitim 
adi  tamtim  saplitim,  asib sarrani  mat  Axarri  asib  kustari  kali- 
sun,  30bilatsunu  kabittim  ubilunimma  qirba  Babili  unassiqu  sepua. 

Istu adi  Assur  u  Susinak,  31Agane,  matEsnunak  aiZamban 

aiMeturnu,  Durilu  adi  pat  matQuti,  maxaza  (sa  ebir)ti  narDiqlat  sa 
istu  apnama  nadu  subatsun,  32ilani  asib  libbisunu  ana  asrisun  utirnia, 
usarma  subat  darata.  Kullat  nisesunu  upaxxiramma,  utir  dadmesun, 
33ii  ilani  matSumeri  u  Akkadi  sa  Nabuna'id  ana  uggatim  bel  ilani  useri- 
bi  ana  qirib  Babili,  ina  qibiti  Marduk  belu  rabu  ina  salimtim  34ina 
mastakisunu  usesib,  subat  tub  libbi.  Kullata  ilani  sa  useribi  ana  qirbi 
maxazesun  35umisam  maxar  Bel  u  Nabu  sa  araku  umea  litamu,  littas- 
karu  amata  dunqiya  u  ana  Marduk  beliya  liqbu  sa  Kuras  sarru  palixika 

u  Kambuziya  marisu  36da sunu  lu matati  kalisina  subti 

nixtim  usesib37 

US.  TUK  XU.  MES  ii  TU.  KIL.  XU.  MES. 

(For  the  broken  traces  of  the  remaining  verses  see  the  Divided 
Transliteration.) 


73 

20I  am  Cyrus,  the  king  of  hosts,  the  great  king,  the  mighty  king,  the 
king  of  Babylon,  the  king  of  Sumer  and  Akkad,  king  of  the  four 
regions,  21son  of  Cambyses,  the  great  king,  king  of  Ansan  ;  grandson  of 
Cyrus  the  great  king,  king  of  Ansan  ;  great-grand-son  of  Teispis,  the 
great  king,  king  of  Ansan,  22of  everlasting  royal  seed,  whose  government 
Bel  and  Nebo  love,  whose  rule  they  desire  as  necessary  to  their  happi- 
ness. 

When  into  the  city  of  Babylon  I  entered  in  friendship,  23with  joy 
and  gladne»  1  established  my  lordly  dwelling  in  the  royal  palace,  Mar- 
duk,  the  great  lord,  made  favourable  to  me  the  generous  heart  of  the  sons 
of  Babylon,  daily  I  cared  for  his  worship.  24My  extensive  army  pro- 
ceeded peacefully  into  the  midst  of  Babylon.  All  Sumer  and  Akkad, 
the  noble  race,  I  permitted  to  have  no  opposition,  2r'the  interior  of 
Babylon  and  all  their  cities  I  cared  fnr  properly,  the  sons  of  Baby- 
lon  as  much  as  they  desired the  yoke  which 

was  not  suitable  for  them,  their  dwelling  place,  -"their  disorder  I 
remedied,  T  caused  their  troubles  to  cea>e. 

At  my  (favourable)  deeds  Marduk  the  great  lord  rejoiced  and  27me, 
Cyrus,  the  king  who  reverences  him  and  (1ambyses.  the  offspring  of 
my  body  (and)  all  my  troops,  -"he  ble>-ed  -raeiou>ly.  while  we  right- 
eou>ly  lauded  his  exalted  divinity. (?) 

-'•'All  the  kings  dwelling  in  royal  halls,  of  all  the  regions  from  the 
upper  to  the  lower  sea.  dwelling the  Kings  of  the  West- 
hind,  all  those  who  dwell  in  tents,  brought  me  :;"their  heavy  tribute 

and  in  Babylon  kissed  my  feet.      From a>  far  ae  AiSur  and 

Silvan,  ::IAgane.  F^nunak.  /ambaii.  Metiirnn.  Durilu,  as  far  as  the 
border  of  the  land  of  the  Quti.  the  cities  aemss  the  Tigris  whose  sites 
had  been  established  from  former  times.  :{-thc  gods  who  live  within 
them,  1  returned  to  their  place-  and  caused  them  to  dwell  in  a  perpet- 
ual habitation.  All  of  their  inhabitants  1  collected  and  restored  to 
their  dwelling  place-.  :;:!and  the  -mis  of  Sinner  and  Akkad  whom 
Nabonidns.  to  the  an-er  <.f  the  lord  of  the  gods,  had  brought  into  Baby- 
lon, at  the  command  of  .Marduk  the  great  lord,  in  peace  :!4in  their 
own  shrines  I  made  them  dwell,  in  the  habitation  dear  to  their  heart. 
May  all  the  gods  whom  I  brought  into  their  own  cities,  35daily 
before  Bel  and  Xebo  pray  for  a  long  life  for  me.  may  they  speak  a 
gracious  word  for  me,  and  unto  Marduk  my  lord  may  they  say,  that 

Cyrus  the  King  who  reverence*  tbee  and  (1ambyses  his  son36 

•  .  .  -their all  the  lands  I  caused  to  dwell  in  a  quiet  dwell- 
in^7 

I  S.  Tl'li.  XI    .MKsand  'IT.  KIL.  XU.  MES. 

10 


74 


THE  CYRUS  CYLINDER. 

COMMENTARY. 

L.  3.  'matu,'  weak  is  a  synonym  of  'ensu  ' — cf.  ASKT  59.21.  'maxiru 
matu  '  =  light  price,  and  for  the  verb  see  IY.  56.11  'me  mastitiya 
umattiV — my  drinking  water  supply  they  lessened.  See  also  Ziminern, 
Busspsalmen,  93. 

'enutu' — abstract  formation  from  the  Sumerian,  'en'  Lord — cf. 
Asurb,  1.38. 

L.  4.  '  tamsilu  ' — similarity,  likeness — I  47.  c.  vi.  14 — '  tam-sil  Xama- 
nim.'  The  form  '  tan-sil '  with  partial  assimilation  of  the  '  in  '  to  the 
'  5 '  occurs  Sarg.  Cyl.  64. — For  this  change  cf.  Haupt,  Hebraica,  I.  pp. 
219-220,  and  see  below  note  to  v.  2,  of  Daniel  v. 

L.  6.  '  para§  la  simatisunu  ' — '  parc.u  '  can  never  mean  '  shrine '  as  Jen- 
sen, Keilinschr.  Bibliothek,  III.  1  p.  201 — translates,  asserting  it  to  be 
a  synonym  of  'parakku.'  In  this  Jensen  appears  to  have  followed  an 
error  of  Winckler's,  for  which  see  Fried.  Delitzsch,  Beitrage  II.  p.  250 
and  remark. 

L.  7.  '  sattukku,'  the  regular  offering  or    TDD  .     For  the  Assyrian 

T 

names  of  sacrifices  cf.  Joh.  Jeremias,  Beitrage  I.  279.  '  sattukku '  may 
be  regarded  as  an  intensive  formation  with  'a'  in  the  first  syllable.  (?) 

L.  9.  '  tazimtu ' —lament  for  'tazzimtu'  from  \/D?J~a  synonym  of 
unninu,  'lament'  and  dimtum,  'tear.'  See  Delitzsch,  Beitrage,  II. 
251,  and  passages  there  cited.  For  the  verb  'nazamu'  cf.  Asb. 
Smith  120,  27—'  a-zi-ma  '—I  lamented  (var.  '  az-zi-ma ')  and  IV.  58,  20b 
1  unazzinm.' 

'ki-su-ur-su-un,'  their  border— cf.  Keilinschr.  Bibliothek  III.  pt.  1. 
18811.  18-19.  'a-xu-u-ti  ki-sur-si-na '— the  portioning  off  of  their 
border.  In  V.  31.  3  e.  f.  we  find  'ki-sur-(ri)'  =  'mi-9ir.'  The  verb 
'kasaru'  means  'bar  off,'  cf.  I.  27,  34  b. 

L.  10.  lsa  innadu  subatsun'— not  'whose  abode  was  cast  down.' 
'subtu'  or  '  musabu  nadu'  means  to  set  up  or  establish  a  dwelling. 
See  Cyl.  31  and  Jager,  Beitrage  II.  282,  and  literature  there  cited. 

L.  11.  '  emu,'  be  like,  is  a  synonym  of  '  masalu  '—V.  47, 23.  It  is  con- 
strued either  with  an  adverb  as  here  cf.  'useme  karmis' — 'I  made  it 
like  a  field,'  Sanh.  I.  75;  'emu  tilsmis,'  I.  51.  n.  2.  14;  emu  'maxxu- 
tis,'  'they  were  as  if  destroyed,'  III.  15.  21,  c.  I.  (See  Jensen  Kosm. 
:;:;<;/7.).  or  with  '  kima  '—or  '  ki '  as  in  the  iVluuv,  Xim.  Epos  II.  143.  1. 
'20.'5.  For  discussion  regarding  the  stem  N/HDJ^  see  n°te  to  v.  21  of 
Daniel  v..  Appendix  I  I. 

•  ;al:ln.tas'— cf.  '  Klamtas,'  Sanh.  Iv.nst.  27— ' axrataS,'  V.  34.  c.  II.  48. 
I  I!.,  Saigon  Uarrcl.  II.  and  T  11.  7.  F.  IS,  'salamtu,'  or,  with  reciprocal 


rr> 

assimilation  'salandu,'  is  the  same  as  N^l'p^'N^'?^  cf.  Haupt, 
Ztschr.  fiir  Assyriologie  II.  266,  n.  5;  Beitrage  1.  3,  and  Hebraica  III. 
187,  for  the  existence  of  a  stem,  \/slm  meaning  to  die,  both  in  Assy- 
rian and  Samaritan. 

'tara.' =  mercy  is  used  substantially  as  in  V.  64,  15!l  and  Creation 
Fragm.  n.  18  obv.  13  (Beitrage  II.  231)— cf.  also  V.  21,  54.  'taru,tir- 
anu,'  forgiveness,  is  a  synonym  of  :  uiustaru' — V.  21.57  (Beitrage  1.173) 
and  L  kissii '  ==  love,  1.  56.  '  Ta-a-a-ra  '  is  an  intensive  form  like  '  daiianu' 
and  stands  for  '  taiiaru.1  cf.  Busspsalmen  102. 

L.  13.  Qutc—  see  below  on  Annals  TIL  15. 

'Umman-manda  probably  means,  as  Jager  has  lately  suggested  (see 
Beitrage  II.  .'{Oil  note),  the  'great  horde.'  or  'army.'  regarding  'nianda' 
as  a  liyform  of  '  ma 'da.  niadda.'  See  the  citation  in  Pelitzsch,  Assyr. 
Worterb.  227.1.  20ff:  111.  U.  <;:!.  38*,  where  we  find  'umman  ma'atti' 
(fern,  of  'ma'du')  for  k  umman-manda.'  Pelit/seh's  opinion  is  that 
'mandn'  stood  for  '  mantii  '  =  '  maim"  =  -  '  ma'anu  '  (cf.  HJJli^P  from 
\7pj7)  and  was  a  word  meaning  north,  (op.  cit,  22(5.)  (Sec.  however,  in 
this  connection  Jensen.  Kosm.  10).  Tlalevy,  Xeitschr.  fur  Assyr.  Ill 
ierived  it  from  vx*110  }-  *'•  manda  =  niadda. 

Umman-manda  seems  to  have  heen  the  common  name  for  the  wild 
hordes  of  the  east  ami  north,  of  various  race.-,  who  were  probably 
so  called  o\vin,Lr  to  their  iireat  nnmbei-s.  Later  on.  however,  the  name 
became  applied  to  the  Medes  proper,  as  we  find  it.  for  instance,  in  V  1!. 
(it.  .'It!  If.  where  Astyages  (I§tumegu)  is  called  •  Kin-  of  the  rmman- 
manda.'  The  reason  of  this  was.  that  after  the  overthrow  of  Nineveh 
by  the  Medes.  the  wild  Asiatic  hordes  became  subject  to  Median  rule 
and  thus  were  identified  in  the  minds  of  foreigners  with  their  con- 
querors. In  the  passage.  V  I!,  ill.  :>o'.  there  is  apparently  a  com- 
parison between  the  'Tinman  nianda.  uivat  army.'  of  Utume.uru  and 
the  •uminani  icuti  '  of  Cyrus.  !  r.  op.  cit.  300  note  and  com- 

pare, furthermore,  in  connection  with  the  name.  Proceedings  of  the 
Society  for  Biblical  Arclia-oh.-v .  Nov.  7.  'S2.  11.  Muss-Arnolt,  Hebra- 
ica, vol.  VII.,  p.  8(iff.  and  Ti.de.  (leschichte.  334). 

'  nise  calmat  qaqqadi/ — Ha.iren.  I>eitra-c  IT.  231,  thinks  that  this  can 
hardly  be  a  reference  to  the  Babylonians,  as  they  were  not  yet  con- 
quered by  Cyrus.  We  have  no  rca-on  to  doubt,  however,  that  Cyrus 
did  not  have  the  ureater  part  of  Babylonia  in  his  hands  before  he 
took  Babylon  proper.  The  'people  of  the  dark  heads'  here,  therefore, 
are  probably  those  Babylonians  who  had  already  surrendered  to  the 
Persian  power,  and  whom  Cyrus  had  treated  with  exemplary  forbear- 
ance. 

L.  14.  'taru' — merciful,  a  derivative  from  '  taru  '—to  turn  towards,  be 
gracious  to.  The  form  ;  ta-ru-u  '  may  be  for  ;  taru,'  an  adjectival  for- 
mation with  '  nisbe.'  Hagen,  Beitr.  II.  231,  compares  V.  47. 17  '  taranu  ' 
='  c,illu,'  but  is  in  doubt  whether  'taranu'  is  from  'taru,'  'to  turn 
toward  '  or  from  a  stem  l  taru '  to  shield.  l  taranu,'  however,  may  be 


Y6 

a  formation  with  '-arm  '  from  '  taru,'  just  as  '  mutanu',  pestilence,'  is  a 
derivative   of   '  m.itu,'    cf.    also    '  garanu  '  —  a   running  of  tears,  from 

;il'U.' 

'ipsetisa  damqata'  —  It  seems  necessary  to  consider  with  Hagen  the 
'sa'  as  a  byform  of  the  masculine  suffix  -su.  Compare  1.  19,  'tukultisa' 
(=  gu)  and  1.  28,  'niaxarSa'  (=  su)  and  also  in  this  connection  IV.  27. 
11  b,  'etla  ina  bit  emutisa  usegu',  they  (the  evil  demons)  have  driven 
the  man  from  his  conjugal  chamber.' 

L.  15.  'tappu'  —  companion  and  technically,  partner,  cf.,  IV.  58,  50n 
'bit  tappesu  '—'  kasap  tappesu  '  ASKT  66.  7.  The  word  can  hardly 
be  connected  with  the  stem  "  ClJOD  ,"  —  protect,1  as  Muss-Arnolt  has 
sought  to  show,  (Hebraica,  vol.  VII.  p.  57.),  first,  because  the  Assyrian 
'  tappu  '  is  written  with  the  character  '  tap  '  (see  Haupt,  ASKT-Schrift- 
tafel  no.  65  and  ASKT,  p.  66-7  ff.)  which  indicates  a  value  '  j"|  '  for  the 
initial  consonant,  and  secondly,  because  the  forms  '  tap-pi-u-tu  '  and 
'tap-pe-su,'  occur,  showing  that  the  word  cannot  be  from  a  stem  yy  . 
We  find  also  the  feminine  form  '  tappatu  '—  V.  39.  no.  3,  1.  62.  For  the 
abstract  'tapputu,'  cf.  IR.  Sennacherib  Prism,  1.  5b  —  'alik  tapput  aki  ' 

—  one  who  goes  to  protect  the  weak  :  V.  33,  c.  II,  5.  '  tap-pu-ut  Marduk.' 
The  stem  in  Assyrian  is  probably  a  derivative  from  the  non-semitic 

root  '  tap  '  =  two  —  the  partner  being  considered  the  '  second.'     Compare 
in  this  connection  V  R.  37.  28  ff,  where  we  find  as  synonyms  of  '  tappu,' 

—  'sina'  =  twice,  'kilallan  '  =  on  both  sides,  and,  V  R.  37,  1.  31,  'atxu.' 
The  latter  being  a  form  from  the  same  stem  as  'axu'  brother,  with 
infixed  *t/  cf.  'itxutu'  =  howling,  from  \/axu  —  IV  9.  n.  3.  39. 

L.  16.  'uttaddu'  —  from  cidu'  —  to  know,  3  m.  pi.  of  the  Iftaal.  See 
IV.  15.  8ft  ;  43,  44.  and  the  Deluge—  Haupt's  Nimrod  Epic,  pt.  II,  pp. 
134-139  1.  113.  For  the  form  cf.  Keilinschr.  und  das  A.  T.2  p.  73. 

'ganduma'  —  usually  of  harnessing  beasts  of  burden,  as  Hagen,  Bei- 
trage,  II.  231  correctly  remarks.  For  a  figurative  usage  of  the  verb 
'§amadu'  compare  however,  ASKT.  116  1.  18.  'ma'dis  ana  salputi 
camdaku  '  —  '  greatly  am  I  yoked  to  sin.' 

'sadaxu'  —  always  means  'to  proceed'  —  'march'  —  cf.  the  substantival 
usage  '  sadaxu  sa  Belit  Babili  '  Asurb.  VIII.  18.  The  procession  of  B. 
of  Babylon.  Derivatives  are  'masdaxu'  —  syn.  of  'suqu'  —  street,  II, 
33.  11—  see  also  ASKT  202.  n.  20,  and  'isdixu  '  =  'alaktu',  IV  57.  15". 

L.  19.  ASKT  'Ina  tukulti-sa'—  see  1.  14. 

'  mitutan  '—  the  dead,  cf.  '  kullatan,'  nmtitfm,'  'kilatan,7  Delitzsch, 
'Assyr.  Gr,  g  80.  d. 

'putaqu  u  pake,'  care  and  protection.  See  Hagen,  Bcitvagc  II,  232. 
'putaqu'  may  be  derived  from  a  stem  *)£  =  paqu,  to  look,  care  for, 


1  tatapu—  means  really  to  surround,  enclose,  cf.  II  R.  23.  1.  ff.  C.—  where  we  find  a 
door  called  'saniqtum,'  i.  e.  that  which  encloses  or  shuts  in,  and  also  'mutetiptum' 
and  titippu.'  All  of  these  words  are  given  as  synonyms  of  '  daltum.' 


77 

being,  as  Hagcn  suggests,  an  intensive  reflexive  form.  '  paqtV  on  the 
other  hand  can  only  be  from  a  stem  Xp£  .  See  Flemming,  Neb.  39, 
and  Zimmern,  Busspsalmen  60,  n.  1,  who  explain  it  as  denoting  the  idea 
of  'confident  looking,'  cf.  Heb.  HpD  i'1  the  Piel,  which  means  'to 
look  attentively.'  Is  it  not  possible  that  *)£  and  X»^  may  contain 


tlie  same  root?  There  seems  to  be  no  connection  between  the  '  pake  ' 
in  this  passage  of  the  C.vi.  and  that  in  V  li.  '2'.}.  '2'.}  '2~.  where  the  word 
'  paku  '  is  cited  as  a  synonym  of  various  expressions  denoting  meekness. 

The  adverbial  accus.  'piqa'  may  be  a  derivative  of  the  stem  K-^p^  , 
cf.  Jager,  Beitrage  II,  80"). 

L.  '21.  Kura;  sar  Babili  ;  .For  the  legends  regarding  Cyrus  in  general 
and  especially  in  connection  with  the  account  of  Herodotus,  compare 
Floigl,  Cyrus  und  Herodot  ;  Bauer,  die  (  'yrussage  ;  Schubert,  Herodots 
Darstellung  dor  Cyrussage.  Bivslau.  IS'.II).  etc..  etc.  For  the  chro- 
nology of  Cym.-  reign,  compare  Tiele,  Geschichte,  p.  4s;',.  and  the  litera- 
ture cited  note  2.;  also  Biidinger,  Die  neuentdeckten  Inschriften 
liber  (  'yrus.  p.  !»9.  IsS]  and  (  )ppert  and  Menant.  Documents  .Iuridi(|iies. 
]..  2<i± 

A-  to  the  commencement  and  duration  of  Cyrus'  rule  in  Babylon 
the  following  statement  may  be  of  interest.  The  last  contracts  of 
the  reign  of  Xaboiiidus  are  dated  in  the  month  lyar  (  April-  .May  ) 

r>:;s.  B.r.    The  date  :>:;s  instead  of  the  usual  :>:;:i  (See  [Jnger,  Kyaxares- 

und  Astyages  p.  "rj.  Noldeke.  Anfsat/.e.  p.  l^i'  is  neee<sitated  by  the 
nine  months'  reign  of  Laba-i-.Marduk.  nnnientioned  b\  the  I'tole 
in;ean  Canon,  which  brings  forward  the  date  of  the  fall  by  one  year. 
Babylon  was  taken  on  the  Kith  Taninm/  (.July  l.")th)  .").'iS.  when 
Xabonidu-  ceased  to  n-i.-n.  Cyrus  entered  the  city  the  ,'lrd  day  of 
Marche-van  (October  27)  evidently  assuming  the  reins  of  government 
at  once,  as  the  first  known  contract  of  his  iviiin  is  dated  in  the  follow- 
ing month  in  his  '  commencement  year;'  i.e.  Kish-v  Kith  (December 
9th)  588.  (See  Tide.  Geschichte  -iiM.  [Jnger,  op.  cit.  .VJ.)  The  oflicial 
first  vear  did  not  JJCLMII  therefore  until  five  nnuiths  later;  i.e.  Nisan 
5:57.  ' 

As  to  the  exact  duration  <>f  Cyrus'  reign  there  is  some  confusion. 
Although  the  Ptolema-an  Canon  gives  him  nine  \ear>a>  King  of  Baby- 
lon, a  contract  exists,  dated  in  his  t<  ntl>  year,  giving  him  the  title 
'  Kin-  of  Babylon  and  of  the  Lands.'  (See  Tiele.  (  ie-chidite  Kl.  citing 
Strassmaier.)  It  is  possible  eithi^r  that  this  may  be  an  error  or  that 
the  writer  may  have  confused  the  last  year  of  Nabonidiis  or  the  com- 
mencement months  of  Cyrus  with  the  first  year  of  Cyrus'  reign.  The 
twenty-nine  years  of  Herodotus  I.  214  and  the  thirty  years  of  Ktesias 
(see  Justin  I.  8.)  attributed  to  Cyrus,  refer  to  his  combined  rule  over 
Aii-^an  and  Babylon.  It  is  therefore  probable  that  Cyrus  began  to 
rei-n  in  Ausan  either  twenty  or  twenty-one  years  before  he  captured 
Babylon;  i.e.  about  5oS  or  ,").">:».  (See  Kvers.  Das  Emporkommen  der 
persischen  Macht  unter  Cyrus,  39,  who  sets  his  birth  about  590.) 


'  sar  kibrati  crbittim' — For  the  origin  and  significance  of  this  title  see 
now  Lehmann,  Samassumukin  pp.  TS.  !i.'5  !K 

L.  21.  '  Mar  Kambuziya,'  etc. 

The  genealogy  of  the  Achamienian  Kings  presents  a  hitherto 
unsolved  problem,  of  which  a  brief  statement  may  be  interesting. 

(Yrus  was  descended  from  the  same  stock  as  Darius  Hystaspis. 
Their  respective  genealogies  as  given  in  the  Cylinder  and  the  Behistun 
Inscription  may  be  seen  from  the  following  table  : 


f  Cyrus,         son  of 


Cylinder. 


L  (SispiS)  Teispis 


Darius,        son  of 
Vistaspa,         " 
Arsama, 
Ariaramna,     " 
(qaispis)  Teispis 
Hakhamanis 

Genealogy 
of  the 
Behistun  • 
1    Inscription. 

Darius  Hystaspis  in  the  Behistun  Inscription  traces  his  descent  from 
Hakhamanis  (Achaemenes)  giving  five  generations  of  his  ancestry,  but 
adding  that  eight  of  his  family  were  formerly  kings  and  that  he  was 
the  ninth.  (See  Spiegel,  Altpersische  Keilinschriften,  1881,  p.  3). 
The  eight  generations  can  be  made  up  from  Herodotus,  who  in  his 
ancestry  of  Xerxes  added  three  names  between  Qaispis  (Teispis)  and 
Hakhamanis,  the  latter  of  whom,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  above  table 
is  mentioned  in  the  Behistun  Inscription  as  father  of  the  former. 
The  three  names  introduced  by  Herodotus  are:  another  Teispis,  whom 
we  may  call  the  first,  and  another  Cambyses  and  Cyrus.  His  geneal- 
ogy giving  eight  generations  is  as  follows:  Her.  YII.  11.  M?)  yap  elrjv 
ex  Aapeiov  TOV  '  YarderTreof ,  TOV  'Apcafieog  TOV  "Ap/weu  TOV  TetaTreoz,  adding 
then  TOV  "Kvpov  TOV  Ka/^3i<<7ew  rov  Tei'aTreof  TOV  'A^atjueveof  yeyovuq. 

Hystaspis,  however,  according  to  Herodotus  III.  70,  was  merely  a 
governor  in  Persia,  though  of  good  family  and  it  is  probable  that 
Arsames  and  Ariaramnes  were  never  Kings,  nor  are  they  so  called  in 
the  Behistun  Inscription. 

Comparing  then  the  record  of  the  Cyrus  Cylinder  with  the  list  of 
Herodotus,  still  further  difficulties  arise,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  fol- 
lowing table: 

Herodotus  and   f 

Behistun        \   Hakhamanig  =  Aohaemenes 
Inscription. 


Names  given 

only  by 
Herodotus. 


Teispis  (?) 
Cambyses  (?) 
Cyrus  (?) 

Teispis 


Herodotus  and 

IJchistun 
Inscription. 


Ariaruiiincs 
A  rsames 
Hystaspis 
Darius 


Cyrus  I 
r.-imbyses  I 
Cyrus  the  Great 
Cambyses  II. 


Cyrus 
Cylinder 


79 

Omitting  the  three  immediate  ancestors  of  Darius  and  counting  only 
the  other  line,  beginning  with  Cambyses  II,  son  of  Cyrus  the  great, 
nine  kings  of  Darius'  family  will  be  found  instead  of  eight.  (Winck- 
ler,  Untersuchungen,  p.  28,  omits  Achrcmenes,  the  '  Ahnherr' ;  but  he 
is  especially  mentioned  by  the  account  of  Darius  as  the  first  of  his 
house.) 

On  examining  the  record  of  Herodotus  (Teispis?  Cambyses?  Cyrus?) 
and  comparing  it  with  the  account  of  the  Cylinder  (Teispis,  Cyrus, 
Cambyses,  Cyrus)  it  serins  probable  that  Herodotus  misunderstood  the 
genealogies,  placing  two  parallel  lines  in  consecutive  order,  omitting 
the  Cyrus  after  Teispis  and  introducing  a  second  Teispis.2  Adopting 
this  supposition  and  omitting  the  Teispis.  Cambyses  and  Cyrus  of 
Herodotus  the  following  family  tree  can  be  presented: 


Achtpmenes 
Teispis 

Ariarainnes 
Arsaraes 
Hystaspis 
Darius 

Cyrus  I 
Cambyx  -  I 
Cyrus  (the  Great) 
Cambyses  II 

Here  again  if  the  three  immediate  predecessor^  of  Darius  be  omitted 
as  non-kiiiL!>.  then-  is  an  ancestry  of  only  six.  whereas  if  they  be 
included  there  is  a  total  of  nine.:;  (  )f  course  the  easiest  way  out  of  the 
difficulty  is  with  Halevy  (.Muscon  '2.  1.' I.)  to  cut  the  knot  by  calling 
Darius  a  liar  and  a>sertinir  that  he  purposely  gave  a  wrong  genealogy. 
(Winckler.  I 'ntrrsiK-hunirrn.  1-*.  hints  at  such  a  solution.  See  in  this 
connection  Delattre,  Mede>. 

Concerning  the  early  history  of  the  Ach;i'inenians  practically  all  that 
can  be  decided  at  prex-nt  is.  that  if  a-  Beems  necessary,  Ariarainnes. 
Arsaincs  and  IFystaspis  be  omitted,  two  unknown  kings4  must  be 
included  in  the  list  in  order  to  make  up  the  total  of  eight  claimed  by 
Darius. 

A -will  be  seen  from  the  above,  the  descent  of  Cyrus  the  Great  is 
perfectly  clear  up  to  Teispis  and  that  Teispis  was  not  only  an  ancestor 

2  Araiaud,  Melanges  Kenier  260,  accepts  the  genealogy  of  Herodotus  and  conject- 
ures that  the  second  Teispis  may  have  been  the  first  King  of  Persia  to  rule  over 
AnSan. 

3  Floigl  (op.  cit.  22)  includes  them,  considering  them  Kinjrs  of  Hyrcania  (see  pp. 
6-7)  and  in  order  to  bring  down  the  total,  sacrifices  Cyrus  I.  the  Grandfather  of 
Cyrus  the  Great.    The  latter  however  distinctly  designates  his  grandfather  as 
'  great  King,  King  of  Ansan.' 

*  Spiegel  adds  before  Achtcnienes  and  Teispis  two  supposed  kings  of  the  same 
name.  If,  however,  Aehannenes,  the  founder  of  the  dynasty,  be  conceived  of  as 
mythical  (the  i/p^—so  Biidinger,  p.  6,  Winckler,  p.  28)  and  as  never  having  reigned, 
(Meyer,  Gesch.  559)  it  will  be  necessary  to  supply  three  supposititious  kings.  For 
other  opinions  concerning  this  problem  see  Rawlinson,  Journal  of  the  Royal 
Asiatic  Society,  1880,  74  ff.  Oppert,  Medes,  113,  b.  162  b.  refuted  however  by  Spiegel, 
op.  cit.  84,  Biidinger  6,  Evers.  26  ff.  etc. 


so 

of  Darius  Hystaspis,  but  also  an  Achamienian  arid  an  Aryan,  is  shown 
by  the  Persian  inscriptions.5  Cyrus  was  therefore  not  of  Elamitic 
origin  or  naturalization,  as  some  have  sought  to  show,6  but  an  Aryan 
of  Aryan  descent,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  ancient  writers  both 
sacred  and  profane.  Not  only  is  Cyrus  called  King  of  Persia  (Parsu) 
in  the  Babylonian  inscriptions,  but  the  testimony  of  the  biblical  writ- 
ers as  well  as  of  Herodotus,  who  drew  from  Greek,  Lydian,  Egyptian, 
Babylonian  and  Persian  sources,  point  to  the  same  fact.  We  should 
compare  the  scriptural  references  to  Cyrus  as  a  Persian  or  King  of 
Persia  ;  Daniel  vi.  28  ;  II  Chron.  xxxvi.  22,  23  ;  Ezra  i.  1,  2,  7,  8 ;  iii. 
7 ;  iv.  3.  In  Ezra  v.  13,  he  is  called  King  of  Babylon.  (See  in  this 
connection  Delattre,  Medes  48,  49.) 

'  Sar  alAnsan.'  The  place  is  specified  either  as  al  Ansan  (city  of 
Ansan)  as  here  or  mat  Ansan,  indifferently.  See  V  R.  64.29,  where 
Cyrus  is  called  King  of  the  country  of  Ansan  and  an  insignificant  vas- 
sal of  Astyages,  lardu  faxrC  The  city  or  country  evidently  bore  the 
same  name.  It  is  mentioned  in  the  astronomical  tablets  in  connection 
with  Subartu.  Compare  Delattre  :  Cyrus  dans  les  monuments  Assy- 
riens,  p.  2,  and  for  Subartu,  see  Zeitschr.  fiir  Assyr.  I.  196. 

The  country  of  Anzan  or  Ansan,  over  which  Cyrus  and  his  three 
ancestors  ruled  has  excited  numerous  conjectures.  See  Evers,  op.  cit., 
p.  30  ff.  and  literature  cited.  Some  critics,  such  as  Rawlinson  (Journal 
of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Soc.  XII.2  p.  76)  and  Sayce  (Transactions  III. 
475)  have  considered  it  identical  with  Elam,  following  the  syllabary 
II  R.  47,  18,  where  we  find  An-du-anki-As-sa-an=Elamtu.  (cf.  also 
Fresh  Light  from  the  Ancient  Monuments,  180,  and  Meyer,  Geschichte, 
396,  493. 

That  the  name  cannot  be  synonymous  with  Elam  is  shown  in  Sen- 
nach.,  Taylor,  5, 31,  where  it  is  recorded  that  the  King  of  Elam  leagued 
against  Assyria  with  a  number  of  smaller  states  among  which  was 
Ansan.  (See  Weisbach,  Anzanische  Inschriften,  123-124.)  Ansan 
must  therefore  have  been  an  independent  state,  but  we  may  conclude 
from  II  R.,  47,  18  probably  at  one  time  tributary  to  Elam.  In  early 
days  it  appears  to  have  been  a  feeble  power,  as  it  succumbed 
the  attacks  of  Princes  like  Gudea  (Amiaud,  Ztschr.  fiir  Keilschrift- 
forschung  1,  249)  and  Mutabbil  of  Durilu  (Winckler,  Untersuchungen, 
116,  156,  157.)  In  the  classical  authors  there  is  no  mention  of  the 
place  but  the  Arab,  Ibn  el  Nadirn  (Kitab  el  Fihrist  12,  22,  cited  JRAS. 

o  Naqsh-i  Rustem  8.  '  I  am  Darius son  of  Vistaspa  the  Achaemenian,  a  Per 

sian  son  of  a  Persian,  an  Aryan  son  of  an  Aryan.'  In  Behistun  1, 14,  61  Darius  says 
that  the  government  which  Gaumata  the  Magian  usurper  took  from  Cambyses  had 
been  in  the  family  from  most  ancient  times.  This  can  only  refer  to  the  rule  over 
Persia. 

e  HaleVy,  Revue  des  fitudes  Juives,  1880.  Comptes  rendues  de  1' Academic  des 
Inscriptions  7, 1880.  Melanges  6,  also  formerly  Sayce,  Herodotus  386 ;  Fresh  Light, 
167-175.  See  however  Delattre  Medes,  45-54,  who  meets  and  refutes  all  of  Hah' vy'> 
theories  in  this  .connection.  Ktesias  stated,  apparently  with  little  or  no  authority 
that  Cyrus  was  Ihr  son  of  u  '  Mardhin  '  robber  Athadatrs. 


si 

XII.2  76)  speaks  of  an    ijUwwt  in  the  district  of  Tuster  (Shuster)  which 
is  probably  identical  with  the  Ansan  of  the  Aclmmienians. 

The  title  King  of  Ansan  proves  nothing  against  the  Persian  origin  of 
Cyrus,  whose  family  may  have  acquired  this  Elamitic  country  by  con- 
quest, perh aps  under  Teispis,  or  some  previous  king.7  It  is  well 
known  that  in  earlier  times  Ansan  was  ruled  by  a  non-Aryan,  non- 
Scmitic  native  line,  and  it  may  be  supposed  that  all  the  Elamitic 
provinces  after  the  complete  overthrow  of  Elam  by  Assurbanipal 
were  an  easy  prey  to  any  invader.  (Note  that  the  language  of  Ansan 
was  Elamitif  See  Weisbach,  An/anisehe  Inschriften,  124.125.  and 
below.  Appendix  II.  on  v.  28.  Amiaud,  Melanges  Renier,  249,  thought 
that  Ansan  was  the  most  ancient  part  of  Elam.) 

With  reference  to  the  fact  that  the  Elamitic  Susa  was  the  seat  of 
the  Persian  power,  wliich  has  been  cited  by  llalevy.  (see  Delattre, 
Medes  r>2)  as  an  evidence  against  the  Persian  origin  of  Cyrus  we  find  a 
satisfactory  explanation  in  Straho.  Susiana.  the  ( leoirraphcr  said,  had 
become  like  a  part  of  Persia.  After  the  conquest  of  Media,  Cyrus  and 
the  Persians.  o\viir_i'  to  the  remote  situation  of  their  own  country, 
established  the  seat  of  their  government  in  the  more  central  Susa,  the 
chief  city  of  Su-iana,  which  is  not  far  from  IJabylon  and  the  other 
provinces.  (See  Strain.,  1.").  !}.  2.  cited  by  Delattre.  1.  c.)  Now  as 
Delattre  has  pointed  out,  had  Susa  been  their  hereditary  capital  we 
would  expect  to  lind  the  Klamitic  language  as  the  usual  idiom  of 
the  Acha-nienian  inscriptions.  It  seems  probable  that  the  Achjmie- 
nian  kings  and  the  Persians  had  at  some  unknown  period  of  their  his- 
tory conquered  and  annexed  to  their  own  territory  the  Klamitic  country 
of  Ansan.  When,  with  the  conquest  of  Media  by  Cyrus,  a  larger  ter- 
ritory was  at  their  disposal,  a  proper  capital  hcinir  necessary  for  the 
new  empire,  the  splendour  of  the  old  Klamitic  Susa  influenced  Cyrus 
to  otablish  it  as  his  headquarter-. 

L.  22.  '  ixxixa  '     an  imperfect  also  occurs  in  '  u  '     cf.    Asiirb.   V  1 1 .  .'III. 
ix  -n  xa.   also    Tig.    VII.    17.      Derivative-   an-   '  \u-axxu  '  =  '  necessity, 
famine.'  cf.  Asiirb.  III.  12.").  Tig.  VIII.  ^.  and  '  Xi;ixtu  '      need,  want 
cf.    Aram    jliriu*n     Dan.  iii.  Hi  :   K/.ra  vi.'.i;  vii.  20.     A  synonym  of 
'xusaxxu'  is  "qalqaltum,"  V  I!.  11.  12    III  def. 

L.  2.'i.  "a<e'a  palax-u  Se"u'  to  care  for.  trouble  about,  is  frequently 
used  in  a  religious  sense,  cf.  AS  KT.  1~).\  .b  ;  anaku  Pulpul  mar  Pulpul 
aradka  asxurka  <•;«.•  (ka)1 — I  N.  son  of  N.  thy  servant  turn  to  thee,  seek 
thee.  rrhere  are  three  \erb>.  '<e'u  '  in  Assyrian  :  viz.,  1.  sell- to  seek — 
vTTJft?',  Hebrew  n^'=to  look,  cf.  2  S.  22.42,  to  look  for  help.  Gen. 
iv.  4,  5  look  graciously  upon,  etc.  2.  Se'u — to  grow,  from  which 

7  See  Evers,  op.  cit.  39;  Winckler,  Untersuch.  128.  Amiaud,  Melanges  Renier, 
260,  n.  3,  refers  the  overthrow  of  Elam  in  Jeremiah  xlix.  34  ff.  to  the  conquest  of 
that  country  by  the  Persians.  See  also  H.  H.  Howarth,  Academy,  no.  1033,  p.  182. 
Note  that  EzekieJ  xxxii.  24  speaks  of  Elam  as  a  conquered  people;  cf.  Meyer, 
Gesch.  560. 

11 


82 

'  se'um '  grain,  cf.  se'u  zer,  I.  70.  c.  1. 1 :  also  AL393.  B.  6.  (creation  tab- 
let)—Hebrew  rW-sprout.     3.  'Se'u'— to  fly,   cf.  Asurb.  VIII.    88. 

L.  25.  'Subatsun' — Hagen,  Beitrage  II.  232,  reads  l  suzuz(?)-su-un, 
a  shafel  of  *  nazazu' — and  translates  'the  yoke  *  *  was  taken  from 
them.'  This  however  necessitates  supposing  an  entirely  new  value 
'zu/' for  the  character  '  be,  bat,  til,  ziz.'  Besides  this  objection,  the 
meaning  'taken  away '  for  the  shafel  of  'nazazu'  given  by  Delitzsch, 
Wi>rterbuch,253,  in  the  passage  V '.  50.51/52,  and  cited  by  Hagen,  1.  c.  in 
support  of  this  translation  of  '  siizuz-su-un '  is  by  no  means  certain. 
The  passage  reads  '  sarat  zumrisu  uszizu '  (Y.50  51/52)  and  is  rather 
to  be  translated  '  one  the  hair  of  whose  body  the  evil  demon  has  caused 
to  stum/  up  (i.  e.  in  fear),  and  not  'taken  away.' 

L.  28.  'ma-xar-sa' — see  1.  14.  'parakku,' — '  sacred  shrine,' or  'royal 
apartment,'  not  a  'seat,'  '  heiliger  Gottersitz.'  with  Lehmann,  '  Samas- 
sumukin,'  Glossar.  I,  and  Berliner  philologische  Wochenschrift,  1891, 
No.  25  sp.  789.  f.  The  word  is  a  derivative  from  the  stem  '  paraku  '  = 
to  separate,  bar  off,  and  signifies  literally,  a  place  barred  off.  Cf. 
Asurb.  IV.  125  '  sa  kima  duri  rabe  pan  Elamti  parku '  which  like  a 
great  wall  barred  the  way  before  Elam.  also  1.  c.  IV.  82  '  sa  suqe  pur- 
ruku' — which  blocked  up  the  streets.  '  Napraku  '  and  'parku'  signify 
a  bolt,  and  are  synonyms  of  '  medilu,'  cf.  11-23,  35-37,  and  38. 

For  the  form  of  'parakku  '  see  Delitzsch,  Assyrian  Grammar,  Engl. 
Ed.  p.  169. 

L.  29.  For  '  kustaru '  see  Delitzsch  in  the  Zeitschr.  fur  Assyriologie 
I.  419  ff. 

L.  30.  '  bilatsunu  kabittini.'  *  biltu  '  is  probably  cognate  with  the 
Hebrew  1^5  ,  see  Paul  llaupt,  Journal  of  the  American  Oriental 

Society,  XIII.  51  f. 

L.  31.  Agane  '"'  an  ancient  city  the  site  of  which  has  not  yet  been 
discovered,  but  it  appears  to  have  been  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Tigris 
in  northern  Babylonia.  The  idea  that  the  name  of  the  place  was 
'  Agade,'  another  form  of  '  Akkad,'  (cf.  Hommel,  Geschichte  p.  204  rum. 
1.  and  p.  220;  234)  is  entirely  unfounded.  Agane  was  plundered  by 
Xumbaxaldasu  II.  King  of  Elam  in  the  sixth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Ksarhaddon  (<>74)  and  the  image  of  the  goddess  Nana  was  carried  away 
to  Elam.  For  the  ancient  kings  of  the  city  see  Lehmann,  '  Samassum- 
ukin,'  !)3.  Tiele  (Jesch.  83,  113,  333,  and  Murdter-Delitzsch.  Babyl. 
Gesch,  2ed.,  p.  73. 

1  Es-nu-nak  '  is  HagenV  reading  for  'Ab-nu-nak'  on  account  of  the 
form '  ASnunnak '  \ .  33.1.  30.  (Inscription  of  Agumkakrime)  cf.  also 
'Is-nu-nak'  I.  00.  n.  2  c.  II.  3  and  see  Del..  Paradise,  230  f.  and  Kos 
s;eans  p.  150.  It  is  a  city  and  district  on  the  border  of  Elam.  In  II. 
3D,  5!l  g.  h.  we  liml  it  compared  with  Um-li-as.  Jensen  in  Keilinschr. 
Bildiotluik  III.  |)t.  1.  137  n.  however  doubts  the  identity  of  Esnunnak 
and  I'mlias  thinking  that  the  former  may  he  the  same  as  the  '  matu 


83 

rabu '  of  1.  60,  while  the  latter  may  be  the  '  matu  gixru '  mentioned 
II  R.  39. 

Zamban  and  Me-tur-nu.     See  Delitzsch,  Paradise,  230  f.  also  203.  204. 

Dur-ilu,  see  Winckler  Untersuchungen  zur  Altoriental.  (lesch.  86, 
Peiser  Actenstucke,  77.  It  was  the  site  of  the  battle  between  Xum- 
banigas  of  Elam  and  Sargon  of  Assyria. 

'pa-at  Quti  '  =  =  '  entrance  '  of  Gutium.  Sec  11  ]\.  51.  c.  II.  21  and 
Delitzsch,  Par.  233 — (Hagen).  Professor  Haupt  has  suggested  that 
'patu'  is  probably  a  feminine  plural  form  of  '  piV  mouth,  just  as 
lpanu'  face  is  to  be  considered  a  masculine  plural  of  the  same  word. 
'pitu'  to  open  may  also  be  a  verbal  formation  from  the  feminine  of 

'puV 

'Qute'— See  'Gutium'  on  Annals  ITT.  17. 

'apnama  "  is  probably  an  abbreviation  for  ;  appimania.'  See  Delit/sch 
I'roleg.  13P>.  According  to  V  I!.  17.  .">.">.  it  is  a  synonym  of  mu'di- 
/immern  Busspsalmen,  97  and  cf.  II.  KI.21  when-  it  appears  to  have 
the  force  of  'very,  exceedingly';  'ina  nari  tabba;ima  muka  daddaru 
appunama.'  When  thou  art  iii  the  river,  thy  water  is  exceedingly 
'daddaru,'  i.  e.  gall-like  bitter.  For  'daddaru.'  see  also  IV.  3,  .'51)'' 
(Busspsalmen  !>7).  where  it  is  explained  by  the  same  ideogram  as 
'niartu';  vi/.,  (Ji-ef.  Syll.  S1'  I'.U  (Ji  --  martu  —  gall,  bitterness,  for 
'niarratu'  f-ee  llaupt.  Ueitr.  l.l»'»and  ef.  I  lel».  n*)"l,tp  •)  'Daddaru' 
•  laiier  has  pointed  out.  a  reduplieative  {'oi'inatioii  from  "TlX  be 
dark,  hence  perhaps  dirty.  (?)  (See  IJcitra-j-e  ll.2!»!l.) 

'  appuna  '  is  explained  by  '  )ii«|a  'II.  25.  lu  :  If',.  1 1.  :lnd  by  the  Sunierian 
'iginzu1  (V,  ir,.:;o  ef.  ASKT.  1S2.  12i.  whi«-h  according  to  Jensen,  Kos 

imdogie  40:i,  is  translated  in  a  IScrlin  syllabary  by  Assyrian  'mandi,' 
the  exact  meaning  of  which  is  not  clear.  (See  V.  1C.  32  f.)  The  form 
'  man(inin)dima  '  on-urs  Semi.  IJawian.  K>.  See  |)«-l.  A^syr.  (Irani., 

p.  210.       For    '  pji|:i  '    see    llnte  to   1.    l!». 

In  II.   1C),  21    c..  we  find  in   the  Sunierian   column   'angaan'  as  the 
equivalent  of  'appunama.'     This   is  e\  idently  a  by  form   of  '  i<jiir.n.'      I 
btdieve  .JaiMT  (I.e.)   is   right    in   eomiecting  'appunama'  with    llie  Tal 
mudic  \P^"ilX  =    indeed,  in  truth.       hi  fact  all  of  these  words.  '  piqa, 
mandi,   igin/u  '  and    'angan'  are   prol»;il»ly  to  be  translated  in  this  way. 

L  .'H.  '  ma-taki-uiiu  '  ef.  I  V.  27.  (.H>  '  ardatam  ma^talvi-a  iiselu  '  =  They 
have  made  the  girl  go  up  from  her  dw(dling.  Asiirb.  X.  72,  '  mastakn 
suatu  musallimu  belesnma  '  The  altode  which  blesso  its  owner. 

L.  35.  'Littaskanf  Niphal  Heflexiveof  '/akaru'  with  partial  assim- 
ilation of  the 'z' to  the'k.'  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  a  verb 
'sakaru'  with  Hagen.  (Why  sakaru  with  p  ?) 

Parallel  forms  are  "  ix<|up'  from  '  y.aqapu    and  'isxur'   from  '  saxaru.' 

L.  37.  For  US-TUR-XU  and  TT  KIL-XU— see  Hagen,  Beitrage  II. 
234. 


THE  ANNALS  OF  NABONIDUS. 

TRANSLITERATION. 

Column  I. 
1 


2  ............................................................... 

............  su  is-si2  sarru 

3  ....................................................  .......... 

.  .  .  .  ma-ti-su-nu3  ana  Babili7  u-bil-lu 

4  ..  ............................................................ 

t,i  (unwritten  space.) 

5  ............................................................... 

su  is-(iz,  ig)-xu-xu-ma  ul  is-si. 

6  .............................................................. 

ti  kimat3-su-nu  ma-la  basu-u 

7  ............................................................ 

(e)-zib.    Sarru  umman-su  id-qe-ma  ana  xu-me-e4 

8  ............................................................... 

........................  i§  (unwritten  space.) 

9  (Sattu    2  kan)  ................................................. 

(ina)    araxTebeti  ina  Xa-ma-a-tu  ipsax5 

10  (Sattu  3  kan)  .................................................. 

(ina)  araxAbi  §adAm-ma-na-nu  sa-qi-i 

11  ...............    .............................................. 

9ip-pa-a-tu  inbu6  ma-la  ba-su-u 

12  ..........................................  .................... 

si-ib-bi-si-na  ana  qi-rib  Babili7 

13  ..........................................  c-/ib-ma  iblu8-ut.     Ina 

araxKisilimi  sarru  umman-su 

14  .............................................................. 

.  .  .  .tim  Nabu-?9-dan-u9ur 

1  NUN-ME. 

2  su  is-isi  or  iS-lim.    This  is  of  course  not  the  ending  of  a  proper  name.    C/.  Floigl, 
Citrus  und   Herodot,  pp.  54,  55,  who  thought  the  passage  referred   to  Croesus  of 
Lydia. 

a  IM-RI-A. 

4  Thus  Hagen.    Schrader  considered  it  a  proper  name  with  determinative. 

i  See  Briinnow's  List,  3036  for  the  ideogram. 

e  So  Winckler,  Untersuchungen,  p.  154. 

7  EM- 

8  TIN. 

»  Hagen  suggests  MAX.    Winckler  has  a  sign  compounded  of  '  5i  '  and  '  en.' 


85 


THE  ANNALS  OF  NABONIDUS. 

TRANSLATION. 
Column  I. 

1 

his  leader 

2 

his ....  the  kins  took  away(?) 

3 

of  their  land  unto  I>al>yhm  they  )»nuiirht 

4 


5 

Su  is-xn-. i'ii-n»i( .'}  he  did  not  take  away 

6 

of(?)  their  families,  as  many  as  then-  were 

- 7 

he  left.     The  kin-  eolleeted  \\\<  tr<M>|i>.  in  order  to(?) 

8 

As. 

(Second  year) ...        9 

in  the  month  Tehet  in  the  land  of  Hamatii  he  irave  peace. 

(Third  year) 10 

in  the  month  Ab,  the  hi.irh  mountain  . \nianiis 

11 

willows,  fruit  as  much  as  there  v 

12 

their.  .  .  .  unto  the  midst  <d'  IJahylou 

he  left  and  remained  alive.     13 

In  Kislev  the  kiuir  (eolleet(Ml)  his  tmops. 

14 


Sfi 
15 


(tam)-tim  sa  matAxarri10  a-na 
16 

-du-um-mu  it-ta-du-u 

17  .................... 

........  -ma  yabe  nia-du-tii 

18  ........  ... 

abullu11  filSin-di-ni 

19 

................  tiduki-su 

20 

..................  te-qu. 

21 


Column  IT. 

1  (Ummansu)   upaxxii>12-ma   ana   cli  mKu-ras   sar  An-sa-an  ana  ka- 
(sa-di-su13)  il-lik-ma.  .  .  . 

2  Is-tu-me-gu  umman-^u  ibbalkit-su-ma  ina  qati  ga-bit  a-na  mKu-ras 
id-(di-nu-sn). 

3  mKu-ras    a-na  matA-gam-ta-nu  al  sarru-u-tn  kas]>u    xuraon  sa-su 
makkuru14  ............ 

4  sa  matA-gam-ta-nu  is-lul-u-ma  a-na  matAn-sa-an  il-qi.    Sa-su  niak- 
kuru14  sa  ud   ..... 

5  Sattu    7kan-    Sarru  ina    aiTc-ma-a     mar   sarri    ara01rabnti  u   c;il)c- 
su  ina  ma*Akkadiki  ........ 

6  ana  Babili7  la  illi-ku.     Nairn  ana    Babili1'"1  la  illi-kn.     Bel  la  it-ta- 
ga-a  isinnu1'5  (akitu)  .... 

7  riiqe  ina  E-sag-gil  u  E-xi-da  ilani  sa  Babili17  n  Bar-sap  ki  (sal-inn) 

8  iddi18-nu  nrigallu19  is-ruq-ma  bita  ip-qid. 

9  Sattu  8kan- 

]()  Sattu  9kan-  Nabu-na'id20  sarru  (ina)  ^Te-ma-a,  mar  sarri, 
am61rabuti  n  umma-ni  ina  matAkkadi.  Sarru  ana  araxNisani  ana 
Babili17 

11  la  illi-ku,  Nairn  ana  Babili15  la  illi-kn,  l>el  la  ittara-a  i-sin-nn  a-ki- 
tu  ba-til 

12  n\<({".  ina    Ivsau-uil  n    K-/i-da  ilani  sa  (Babili)  u    Bar-sip-ki   ki  sal- 
inn  i(ldi-18na, 

loMAU-TLI. 

11  Kvidently  'bfibu  rabn.' 

12  NIGIN—  So  Hag-en. 

13  Hag-en. 
n  SA-GA. 


i6  For  the  ideogram  see  Delitzsch,  Lesestlleke,  Schrifttafel,  n.  111.  Col.  2. 

i'  Tin-tir-ki. 

i«  SE; 

i'.»  SKS.  (l\\,.     I  rnml  '  is-riK|'  willi  Ha^cii  :is  j)r<-l'rr:itilc  to  Sclir:ul(>i-'s  '  kiril  V.^-ma. 

20  AN-PA-I. 


87 

15 


the  sea  of  the  Westland  unto 

............     16 

il  '  ii-u  in-ni  a  set  up. 

...................     17 

.........  numerous  warriors 

.............................................................     18 

the  gate  of  the  city  of  Sindin 

.........................  ........................     19 

.  ..........  his  troops. 

..  .....................     20 

...........  (marched  ?) 

..............................................................     21 

...................  warriors. 


II. 

(His  troops)  he  collected,  a.irainst  Cyrus,  kin-  of  Ansin,  to  compier       1 

him  he  went. 

I  Against)   Astyaues  his  troops  rebelled  and.  being  taken  prisoner,       2 

unto  Cyrus  tliey  gave  him. 

Cyrus   unto    Ecbatana,  the   royal  city,  went,   the   silver,  gnhl,  treas-       3 

ures,  spoil  ........... 

of  the  land  of  Kebatana   they  captured  and   unto  the  land  of  An-        4 
san  lie  brought.     Tin-  treasures  and   spoil  which  .......... 

The  seventh  year.     The  king  in  Tema  ;   the  noldes  and  his  army  in       5 

Akkad.     (The  kin-  for  Nisan) 

unto    Babylon   came    not.      Xebo   unto    Babylon   came   not,  Bel   was       (> 

oot  brought  forth;  the  New  Fear's  festival  (remained  uncelebrated), 

sacrifices   in    Ksaggil  and    K/ida  to  the  nods  of   Babylon  and  Bor-       7 

sippa,  as  is  (right), 

the\  gave.  the  I'rigal  poured   out  libations  and   -uarded  the  palace.       S 

The  eiuhth  year. 

The  ninth  year.     Xabonidus  the  kini:  in  Tema  ;  the  son  «»f  the;  kin^,     10 

the    noldes   and    his   army    in    Akkad.     The    kini:    for   Nisan    unto 

Babylon 

came    not.       Nebo    unto    Babylon   came  not.    Bel    was   not  brought     11 
fortli  ;   the  New  YearV  festival  remained  uncelebrated, 
sacrifices  in   Ksa-nil  and   K/ida  to  the  gods  of  Babylon  and  Bor-     12 
sippa.  as  is  riu'ht,  they  gave. 


88 

13  araxNisanu  umu   5kan-  Ummi    sarri    ina   Dur-ka-ra-su    sa    kisad21 
nflrPurati22  e-la-nu  Sip-parki 

14  im-tu-ut.     Mar    sarri    u   yabe-su  3    u-mu    su-du-ru   bikitu    sitku- 
na-3-at.     Ina  araxSiinani  ina  matAkkadiki 

15  bi-ki-tu  ina  eli  uninii  sarri  sitkuna-at.2:{     Ina  anixNisani  mKu-ras 
isar  miltPar-su  <;abe-su  id-qi-e-ma 

16  sap-la-an  alAr-ba-'-il  narDiqlat  i-rab-ma  ina  ftra*Ari  anam{lt. . . . 

17  sarri-su  i-duk  bu-sa-a-su  il-qi  su-lit  sa  ram-ni-su  ina  libbi  u-se-li- 
(ma  ?) 

18  arki  su-lit-su  u  sar-ri  ina  libbi  ib-si. 

19  Sattu  10kan-  Sarru  ina  alTe-ma  mar  sarri  am61rabuti  u  umma-ni- 
su  ina  matAkkadiki-     Sarru  (ana  Nisani  ana  Babili  la  illi-ku) 

20  Nabu  (ana)  Babili  la  illi-ku,  Bel  la  ittaga-a  isinnu  a-ki-tu  ba-til 
niqe  (ina  E-sag-gil  u  E-zi-da) 

21  ilani  sa  Babili17  u  Bar-sip-ki  ki  sal-mu  iddi-na.     Ina  araxSimani 
umu  21kan    

22V   sa  matE-lam-mi-ya  ina  matAkkadiki amelsa-kin24  ina  Uruk 

23  Sattu    llkan.     garru  ina  a'Te-ma-a,  mar  sarri  am%abuti  u  umman- 
su  ina  matAkkadiki  (Sarru  ana  Nisfini  ana  Babili  la  illi-ku) 

24  (Nabu  ana)  Babili7  sarru  ana32  Bel  la  ittaga-a  isinnu  a-ki-tu  ba-til 
niq(e  ina  E-sag-gil  u  E-zi-da) 

25  (ilani  sa)  Babili7  u  (Bar-sip  ki  sal-mu)  iddi-na 

About  19  lines  wanting.     Of  reverse  about  17  lines  wanting. 

Column  III. 
1     narDiqlat 


2     se  Istar  Uruk 

3 ilani  sa  mat  tam-(tim) . . 

4 


pi-ni 

5  (Sattu   17kan-) Nabu  istu 

Bar-sipki  ana  agi-e. . . . 

6 ab  sarru  ana  E-tur-kalani-nia  erub.-5 

Ina • 

7     tam-tim  sapli2G-tum    ?-bal-ki-tum .  . 

sit 

8  (Nabu  ana    Babili   illi-ku?)  Bel   ittaca-a  isinnu5  a  ki-tu  ki  sal-mu 
ep-su.     Ina  arax 

21  TIK. 

22  UD-KIB-NUN. 

23  SA. 

24  MAT  (KUR). 
»r.  TU. 

se  BAL. 


89 

The  month  Nisan.     The  fifth  day.     The  mother  of  the  king  died  in     13 

Durkarasii,  which  is  on  the  bank  of  the  Euphrates  above  Sippar. 

The  son  of  the  king  ami  his  army  mourned  three  days,  a  lanienta-     14 

tion  took  place.     In  Sivan,  in  Akkad 

a  lamentation  for  the  mother  of  the  king  took  place.     In  Nisan,     15 

Cyrus,  king  of  Parsu,  collected  his  troops, 

below  Arbela  the  Tigris  In-  i-ro>scd(?)    In  lyyar.  (o  the  land  of.  .  .  .      Ul 

its    kin.ir    he    killed,    its    loot   he    took.     His    own    governor(?)   he     17 

appointed  (lit.  made  go  up)  there. 

Afterward  his  governor  also  beeame  king  there(?).  IS 

The  tenth  year.     The  king  in  Tema  :  the  son  of  the  king,  the  nobles     19 

and  his  army  in  Akkad.     The  king  (for  Nisan  unto  Babylon  came 

not) 

Ncbo  unto  Babylon  came  not.  Bel  was  not  brought  forth  ;  the  New     20 

Year's  festival   remained    unperformed,  sacrifices  (in    Ksaggil  and 

Ezida) 

unto  the  gods  nf  Babylon  and  Borsippa,  as  is  right,  they  gave.     In     21 

Sivan.  the  twenty  first   day 

of  the  Klamitt'(V)  in  Akkad the  representative  in  Krech.  .  .     22 

The  eleventh   year.     The  king  in  Tema  :   tin-  .-on   of  the  king,  the     2.'J 
nobles  and  his  army  in  Akkad.     (The  king  for  Nisan  unto  Babylon 
came  not) 

(Xebo  unto)  Babylon   (came   not).      Bel  was  net    brought  forth,  the     21 
New    Year's   fe-tival   remained   uncelebrated,  sacrifices   (in    Ksaggil 
and  l']/ida 

to  the  .iiods  of)  Babylon  and  ( B»rsippa.  as  is   ri-ht).  they  gave 2~> 

(About  111  lines  wanting.     (  M  reverse,  about  17  lines  wanting.) 

('nlllillll      III. 

..the  Ti-M-is 1 


I -tar  of  Kre.di 2 

.  .gods  of  the  land  of  the  sea. 3 

4 


(The  seventeenth  year) Ncbo  from  Borsippa       5 

to  go  forth .... 

alt  the  king  unto  Kturkalamma  entered  in  the       (! 

month .... 

of  the  lower  sea,  rebelled(?)       7 


(Ncbo  came   unto    Babylon?)     Bel  was  brought   forth.     The  New       8 
Year's  festival  they  celebrated,  as  is  right.     In  the  month. . . . 


1>     il.  <laki  UuZa-ma-ma  n  ila  it  u  ilani 

kalam-ma  ana   Babili17  erubu-ni.     A  IS"  ket29  anutriiili 
il;i  \kkadik* 

.  oli  same  u  sapla30  same  ana  Babili7  erubu-ni  ilani  sa  Bar 

bftW 

V2    u    Sip-parki   la    erubu-ni.      Ina    araiDiizi    mKu-ras    eal-tum    ina 
ina  imix 

'.at  ana  libbi  uuana-ni  m«*Akkadiki  ki  epu-su  ni^e  mitAk- 
kadi^  ^kiepu-suv- 

14     l?AL  ki  Turn  14     Sippar^  ba-la  yal-tum 

•it, 

ui'id  ix!  a   W    ml>ba-ru   am^paxat  m^Gu-ti-uni 

.  .ibe  mKu  s.'al-tum 

U>     ana  Babili7 erub.     Arki  Nabu-na'id  ki  irtaka:*-sa  ina  Babili"  ya-bit. 
\i    maJaktut.tumo 

:i-um  babaui  _il  isxur  -i  miiu-ma  ina 

K  sau  ail  n  ekurv 

-.i-kiu  u  si-nia-nu  ul  eu:  v-auiua  umu  3kan-   mKu- 

;ia  Babili"  orub.-5 

\         ui-e  ina  (.Kiui-su  irpudii^-ui.     Su-luui  anaali  sa-kiu.    mKu-ras 
um  ana  Babili17 

i-bi.    mGu-l>a-m  *m*>;  :a   iua  Babili" 

qid 

21     u  ultu  araxKi>ilimi  adi  »"«Addari  ilani  <a   ma«Akkadiki  ki  ™Na- 
bii-ua'id20  ana  Babili"  u-se-ri-du-(inm) 

-  i-nu  itur  -/anna  musu  umi  llkmn 

ba-rn  ina  eli   - 

.ri  adi  uu 
••^Nisaui  bi-ki-tum  iua   ^Akkadi^ 

%J4    T  >u-uu  ilbinuui.43    I'niu    4faul  mKani-bu-zi-ya 

mar 

IMAM*. 

•  ML 

TA. 

topetitioa  de*riy  -          -  4 

Aloe' 

first  by  H»gea. 
M« 


»  LI. 


:xME- 

•  H 

•-  t: 

•  0 


91 

the  irnds  of  Maradda.  the  trod  /amama  and  (he  irods  of   Ki^,  Belt  is       !> 

and  tho  uods 

of  Harsagkalamma  entered  into  Babylon.     I'ntil  the  end  of  Klul.     10 

the  gods  of  Akkad, 

tho>e  wlio  are  ahove  as  well   as  those  below  tlie  firmament,  entered      11 

into  Babylon.     The  irods  of  Borsippa.  Kutii 

and  Sippar  entered  not     In  the  month  Tammuz  when  Cyrus  gave     12 

battle  in  Opis  (and  ?)  on  the 

Salsallat  to  the  troops  of  Akkad.  the  people  of  Akkad  he  subdued.      1.", 


whenever  they  collected  he  slew  the   people.      On  the  1  Ith  day  Sip-     14 

par  was  taken  without  hattle. 

Nabonidus  tied.     On  the  Itith  day  ( Inhryas  t  he  -overnor  of  ( J  ut  iuni      15 

and  the  trnnps  <it  Cyrus  witliout  battle 

entered    into    Babylon.       Afterward.   Nahonidus  althon.uli   he  had      1(! 

shut  luinselP  ui)(??),  was  taken  prisoner  in  Babylon.      I'ntil  the  end 

of  tin-  month.  shields(?) 

of  Gutium  surrounded  the  gates  of  K-a^il.     No  weapons  were  in     IT 

Ks.-iiriril  and  in  the  other  temples 

and    no  standard  had   been  br.m-ht    in.     On  Marche-van  .">d,  Cyrus      IS 

entered  Babylon. 

The  Inu-ini-  lay  down  before  him.      IVaee  was  eoiilirmed  to  the  city.      ID 

Cyrus  pronounced  peace  to 

all     Babylon.     Qobryas,    his    ^overiior,  he    appointed    governor    ill     20 

BabyloD  and 

from  Kislev  until  Adar.  the  -'od>  of   Akkad.  which    Nabonidus  had     21 

brought  down  to  Babylon. 

unto    their    own    cities    he    returned.     On    the    iii-ht   of    the    llth     22 

ftf arch eS van,  Qobryaa  against 

....the  son  of  the  king  he  killed.     I"romthe27th  Adaruntil  \isan    215 
3d,  mourning  took  place  in  Akkad.... 

All  the  people  east   down    their  he;ids.     On   the    fourth   day.  when      21 
Canibysrs.  son  of  Cyrus  went 


92 

25  a-na    E-SA-PA-KALAM-MA-SUM-MU    ki    illiku 
Nairn  sa  pa 

26  (ki  illi)-ku  ina  qati45  dib-bu  us-bi-nim-ma  ki  qfita  Nabu 

27  (as-ma)4r'-ri-e  u    ma*akigpat45pi.  ta 

mar  sarri  ana 

28     Nabu  ana  E-sag-gil  is-xur  'uniqe  ina  pan  Bel  u  su 

Column  IV. 

1     

en 

2     

e-ki46  meP1- 

3     

X47?1-  ik-ta-tur 

4     

(is)-sak-kan  arxu  babu  na-pi-il 

5 

....E-an-nasaUbara48ki 

6     

bit  mu-um-mu  ittagi 

7     

zi 

8     

ina  Babili7 

9     

Babili17  is-kir-ma 

«Hagen.    Schraderhas   "E.  PA.  Nabu-??" 
4fi  Hagen. 

46  Hapen  reads:  sa  Babil-aP1- 

47  DAN(?) 

•is  See  Sb  a53. 


93 
to  E-SA-PA-KAL  AM-MA-SUM-MU,  the  prefect  of  Nebo  who ....     25 


when  he  went,  in  his  hand  a  message  he  brought,  when  the  hands  26 

of  Xebo 

javelins  and  quivers  •  •  •  •  the  son  of  the  king  unto 27 

....  Nebo  turned  to  Esaggil,  sacrifices  before  Bel  and 28 

Column   1 1  \ 

I 


•  o/ 

2 


3 

4 

. . .  .the  gate  was  destroyed, 

5 

unto  K-aima  i'mni.  . .  . 

6 

from  the  Bit-nmmmu  he  unit  forth. 

7 


in  Babylon, 

9 
.  .  .  .he  shut  up  l>;ibyhin. 


94 


THE   ANNALS   OF    NABONIDUS. 

COMMENTARY. 

Column  7. 

L.  6.  'kimatsunu;'  'kimtu  '—family,  from  'kamu  '  to  bind,  is  a  synonym 
of  '  xammu'  and  '  altu,'  both  meaning  family.  '  Xammu,'  which  occurs 
in  the  famous  name  '  Xammurabi,'  is  a  derivative  from  the  stem  '  xam- 
amu  '  =  to  bind  or  fix  firmly.  See  E.  J.  Harper,  Beitrage,  ii.  412  ;  '  lux- 
mum  '  construed  with  '  tereti  '  =  oracles.  Of.  also  V  R.  43.  36d.  and 
II  R.  57.  27  cd.,  cited  by  him,  and  compare  further  Haupt's  Texts,  p. 
36.  1.  882,  where  'xammu'  is  explained  by  the  same  ideogram  as 
'ecedu' — bind,  surround,  gather.  (See  also  Zimmern,  Busspsalmen, 
81  and  Delitzsch,  Kossaeans.  72  rem.  2.)  Another  derivative  of  this 
stem  is  '  xammamu' =region,  enclosed  district,  I  R.  Sargon  Barrel- 
Cylinder  1.  9.  (Lyon's  Sargon.  66.  9.).  'altu,'  the  second  synonym  of 
'  kimtu'  is  a  rare  word  from  the  stem  ^HN  —  to  settle,  and  must  be 
carefully  distinguished  from  '  altu'  =  '  assatu  '  =wife-  For  this  word 
and  the  passages  where  it  is  found,  see  Jager,  Beitrage,  ii.  303. 

For  the  ideogram  '  im-ri-a '  =  '  kimtu '  cf.  Belser,  Beitrage  ii.  137  : 
I  R.  70.  c.  II  1.  2.     In  IV  R.  10.  37.  b.,  however,  we  find  '  im-ri-a '  = 
'  rusumtu,'  marsh.     See  Briinnow,  List,  8396  ff. 

L.  10.  'Ammananu.'  Hommel  thinks  this  is  identical  with  the  Baby- 
lonian-Elamitic  '  Amnanu  '  (See  Lehmann,  Samassumukin,  p.  76.  rem. 
2).  For  'Amnanu,'  probably  near  the  border  of  Elam,  see  1.  c.  40  and 
76.  Hagen — Beitrage  ii.  235 — reasoning  from  Tig.  Jun.  rev.  76  and 
Sennach.  Kuj.  4.  12,  believes  that  'Ammananu  '  of  the  Annals  was  a 
part  of  Lebanon.  It  appears  impossible  to  decide  at  present  whether  it 
was  an  Elamitic  or  Palestinian  mountain. 

L.  11.  'gippatu' — some  sort  of  tree  or  reed,  for  whose  cultivation 
water  was  needed,  as  it  was  planted  by  the  side  of  canals — cf.  Hebr. 
HiDVfi^  an^  i*1  this  connection,  Jensen,  Zeitschr.  fur  Assyriologie,  iii. 
317,  85  and  Hagen,  op.  cit.,  p.  236. 

L.  19.  I  have  followed  Haven's  readin.u1  OAZA  instead  of  Wincklcr's 
'  sigisse'  =  'niqu.' 

Column  II. 

L.  2.  'Istumegu'  =  Astyages.  The  Median  empire,  an  outline  of 
whose  history  has  been  given  above,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  I  Vvsians 
•in  about  the  year  549  B.  C.  According  to  this  account  which  probably 
belongs  to  the  sixth  year  of  Nabonidus,  the  Median  army  rebelled 
against  Astyages  their  king  and  delivered  him  over  to  (Vrus,  king  of 
the  tributary  state  of  Anssin  (S<><-  (1yr.  Cyl.  note  to  I.  21.).  Tlie 


95 

then  marched  upon  and  plundered  Kcbatana  the  Median  capital,  soon 
^•tting  possession  of  the  entire  empire. 

A>t\'a«jies  was  the  son  of  the  great  Cyaxares,  conqueror  of  Nineveh. 
About  the  ultimate  fate  of  Astyages  there  are  various  accounts.  Ac- 
cording to  Herodotus  1.  130,  Cyrus  kept  him  prisoner,  but  did  not  mal- 
treat him.  The  only  author,  as  far  as  I  know,  who  asserted  that  the 
Median  king  was  killed  by  Cyrus,  was  Fsocrates  in  his  funeral  oration  on 
Kvagoras.  king  of  Salamis  (See  Oration,  D.  38.  where  it  is  asserted  that 
Cyrus  killed  the  father  of  his  mother,  which  is  probably  an  allusion  to 
Astyages.  with  regard  to  whose  relationship  to  Cyrus,  we  may  suppose 
that  Isocrates  followed  Herodotus.)  According  to  Ctesias,  Cyrus 
treated  Astyagi-s  like  a  father  and  sent  him  to  a  distant  province. 
Some  years  later,  being  summoned  to  court,  Astyages  was  left  behind 
in  a  desert  by  the  Persian  servants  of  Cyrus  who  thus  thought  to  do 
their  master  a  service  (ef.  Persica,  25). 

Astyages  has  survived  in  the  tradition  of  the  East  under  the  name  of 
'  LJB  JVt  '  or  in  Armenian  'Adjiahak.'  .Moses  of  Chorene.  Hist.  Annen. 
edition.  \Vhiston,  p.  77.  -.rives  the  1'orni  '  Dahak.'  Lenormant  explained 
the  name  as  meaning  'biting  serpent.'  a  translation  rightly  rejected 
by  Oppert.  Weisbach,  Acham.  Inschr.  zweiter  Art,  p.  20.  remarks 
that  such  an  epithet  would  be  more  befitting  a  chief  of  the  Sioux 
Indians  than  a  great  kinir  !  Weisbach  derives  the  name  from  the 
Aryan  stein  'aisti'  lance  and  'yuga,'  a  formation  from  the  well 
known  >tem  'yiij,'  several  of  whose  numerous  meanings  may  be  under- 
stood in  this  connection;  thus.  '  lie  connected  with,  set  in  motion,' 
etc.  The  name  may  mean  'he  who  wields  a  lance '(V).  \Vinckler,  with- 
out -ullicieiit  reason,  regarded  Asi;-.  neither  a  Mede  nor  a 
descendant  of  Cyaxares.  but  as  a  Si-ytli  who  with  his  barbarous  hordes 
had  gotten  possession  of  .Media  (  riitrr-iK-hiin'jcn.  pp.  124  It'.).  For 
the  fall  of  the  Median  power  under  Astya-jvs.  ef.  among  others  Biidin- 
ner.  AllS'jangdes  Medisehell  lleiches.  1 

L.  .">.  'A-amtanu  '    see  Kr-ilinsdir.  und  das  alte  Testament,  378.  524. 

i  was  evidently  pronounced  like  Arabic  kghain,'  as  seen 

f'i'oi"  NAtSnX.  (S(l('  Haupt,  Assyr.  K  \'o\vel,  p.  12,  note.) 

L.  5.  'Tema'.  Evidently  not  a  quarter  of  Babylon,  (Ilommel, 
Gesch.779;  Pinches.  Transactions  of  the  Society  for  Biblical  Arch;c- 
olo-y.  vii.  152)  but  a  place  at  some  distance  from  tin;  capital.  The 
king  would  hardly  have  stopped  so  long  in  a  quarter  of  the  city  without 
attending  the  yearly  feast  of  Marduk.  Tide's  conjecture  ((Jesch.  470. 
n.  1)  that  Tema  was  probably  not  in  Akkad.  because  it  is  especially 
stated  that  the  king  was  in  Tema  and  the  son  of  the  king  in  Akkad, 
seems  improbable,  because  Akkad  was  the  general  name  for  all  Baby- 
lonia (See  Lehmann.  Samaisinnukin,  71  f.)  It  is  not  possible  at  present 
to  determine  the  exact  situation  of  Tema. 

L.  6.  'isinnu  akitu.'  See  also  Pinches'  Texts,  15.  No.  4.  7.  The 
New  Year's  festival  or  'zagmuku,'  (='res  satti,'  nJL^Jl  tP'N"U  See 


96 

East  India  House  Inscription,  VII.  23  '  ina  isinim  /agmiiku';  '  isinnii,' 
pi.  '  isinate  '  (see  1  R.  66.  3.  7.)=  festival,  probably  from  a  stem 


Cf.  'Assinnu  '  a  sort  of  priest,  II  R.  32.  22.  ef.  =  ideogram  UR.  SAL. 
(cf.  also  IV  R.  31.  12.)  UR,  SAL,  is  also  explained  II  R.  36.  49  e,  by 
sibku  sa  pi  ':  -  'weeping  or  lamenting(?)  with  the  mouth.'  May  not 
the  duties  of  the  Assinnu  '  have  been  connected  with  lamentation, 
perhaps  at  funeral  rites(?). 

The  form  '  isittu,'  Sb-  263,  must,  as  Zimmern  remarked,  (Buss- 
psalmen,  31.  n.  1,)  stand  for  'isintu'  a  feminine  formation  from  the 
same  stern  as  '  isinnu.'  For  '  isinnu  '  cf.  further  ASKT.  80.  18  ;  V.  31. 
50  ;  Nimrod  Epic.  75.  6.  ',  Sennach.  Smith.  119  ;  Asb.  Smith.  119.  17.  ; 
126.  77. 

'  akitu  '  —  perhaps  as  Hagen  points  out,  1.  c.  238,  some  sort  of  sacrifice. 
(See  East  India  House  Inscr.  IV.  7  ;  '  Bit  niqe  akiti  girti.')  It  is  pos- 
sible, as  Hagen  suggests,  that  '  akiti  girti  '  in  this  passage  is  in  apposi- 
tion to  and  denotes  a  peculiar  kind  of  '  niqe.' 

For  '  akitu  '  see  I  R.  67.  c.  I  35.  and  Pinches'  Texts  17.  7. 

L.  8.  'Urigallu  is-ruq.'  According  to  Sc-  Ib.  10  ff.,  SES.  GAL.  = 
'  urigallum  '  —  '  massu  biti,'  i.  e.  the  '  massu  '  of  the  house  or  temple,  a 
priestly  office  of  very  high  rank.  We  should  compare  here  ASKT.  76. 
18,  where  the  god  Ea  is  called  the  exalted  '  massu,'  and  Pinches'  Texts, 
17.  1.15  If.  where  two  brothers  of  the  king  are  mentioned  as  being 
endowed  with  the  office  of  SES.  GAL  ;  '  Samas-ium-ukin  axi-ya  talime 
ana  sarrut  Kardunyas  usadgila  paimssii.  'Asur-mukin-paleya  axiya 
tardinni  ana  SES.  GAL-ut  ugdallip(?)  ina  pan  ----  Asur-etil-same-u- 
erciti-bala(t)su  axiya  gixra  ana  SES.  GAL-ut  pan  Sin  asib  xarrani 
ug-dallip(?j.' 

I  prefer  to  adopt  here  the  reading  '  tardinnu  '  in  place  of  the  usual 
'  kuddinnu,'  regarding  it  as  a  word  descriptive  of  close  relationship, 
probably  meaning  elder  brother,  and  as  a  derivative  of  the  stem  '  radii  '  = 
'  to  copulate.'  Compare  'radu'  and  'ridu'  synonyms  of  'maru*  child, 
II  R.  30.  No.  3.  1.  30  ff.  'Tardinnu'  must  be  considered  a  similar 
formation  to  '  terdinnu  '  II  R.  30.  No.  3.  46.  The  exact  force  of  the 
three  words  '  talimu,'  '  tardinnu,'  and  '  gixru  '  in  the  inscription  of 
Asurbanipal  just  cited  is  by  no  means  clear.  Lehmann,  Samassumu- 
kin,  L3.  12,  translates  '  tardinnu  '  which  he  reads  '  kuddinnu,'  by 
'unrechtmassig'  and  p.  30  by  'unebenbiirtig.'  Tiele  in  his  review 
of  Lehmann,  Ztschr.  fur  Assyriologie,  vii.  p.  76  prefers  to  regard  the 
three  words  as  indicative  of  grades  of  nmk(?). 

The  real  meaning  of  'urigallum'  is  probably  elder  brother.  See  IV 
R.  58.  33.  where  the  ideogram  SES.  GAL  occurs  in  parallel  with  k  N  I  N. 
GAL-ti'  =  'axati  rabiti'  =  elder  sister,  and  II  R.  '2!>.  (>.'>.  b  IV..  where  we 
find  8ES.  GAL.  =  'urigallum  '  eompaml  with  'tardinnu'  and  'dub- 
bussu.'  For  the  phonetic  reading  '  u-ri-gal-lum,'  see  Scb-  1.  13,  where 
we  find  it  descriptive  of  the  ideogram  .MAS.  MAS. 

L.  10.  Winckler  lias  omitted  '  sarni  '  liet'oiT  'ana  Nisani.' 


07 

L.  13.  'Diirkarasu  '—also  to  be  found  II  R.  52.  No.  2.  651.    (Hagen.) 

L.  15.  'Parsu  '—see  Behistun  1.  14.  41 ;  2.  47.  In  the  inscriptions  of 
tin-  second  sort  we  find  the  form  '  Parsin  '  (See  Weisbach — Achamc 
niden  Inschriften  zweiter  Art.  106.).  '  Parsu  '  in  the  Annals  appears  to 
have  l)eon  used  synonymously  with  'Ansan.'  Thus.  Cyrus  seems  to 
have  been  called  indifferently  by  the  Babylonians  either  'Kins  of  An- 
san '  or  of  ;  Parsu.'  Compare  Annals  c.  II.  1.  1  and  1.  15  and  see  also  in 
this  connection,  Amiand.  Melanges  llcnier  *JH5.  265). 

Whether  the  name  '  Parsua  '  (P.arsuas)  which  in  early  days  seems  to 
have  heen  applied  cither  to  Northern  Media  or  to  some  part  of  that 
territory,  (see  Tielc.  Gesch.  '21.  111.").  iMI.  HC',.  2<i:5.  and  llonmiel,  Gresch. 
71!>.  7.'5!).  740.  744)  can  be  identified  with  the  later  l  Parsu  '  =  Persia. 
inii-t  remain  a  matter  of  doubt.  Tiele  Mlesch.  .'!<)[)  suggested  that  the 
n:iine  '  I'arsiia  '  may  have  been  applied  to  Persia  as  early  as  the  time  of 
Sennaeherib.  It  dors  imt  srem  impossible  that  the  old  '  Parsua  '  may 
have  heen  the  home  of  IVrsian  tribes,  who.  migrating  to  the  South, 
earrird  the  name  to  the  regions  about  Khun;  i.e.  to  the  Klamitic  Ansan. 
H.  H.  Howarth  in  the  Academy.  No.  lo:s:>.  p.  ±J1  MS!»2)  argued  with 
-nine  reason,  however,  that  the  |Vr>ian  tribes  could  not  have  occupied 
Parsua  loin:,  or  we  would  find  Aryan  words  in  Assyrian,  because  the 
rians.  as  is  well  known,  overran  and  occupied  the  country  in  early 
times.  In  Academy.  No.  HM1.  p.  .",7:5.  he  mentions  as  additional  evidence 
that  the  geographical  and  personal  names  of  'I'arsua1  are  not  Aryan. 
It  i-  practically  impossible  at  present  to  determine  the  original  habitat 
of  the  Persians.  It  is  not  unlikely,  however,  as  Amiaud  has  suggested, 
(Melanges  llenier. 'Jill'  that  the  names  '  Anfon '  and  '  Parsu  '  after  the 
IVr.-ian  invasian  of  the  former  territory  became  synonymous  in  much 
the  Baine  manner  as  (iaiil  and  France.  Britain  and  Kndand. 

L.  111.  '  Diqlat  irab.'  Accordim:  to  the  latest  collation  by  IFa.iron 
(Boitr.  ii.  240)  the  sign  k  rah'  is  dear.  The  meaning  'crossed  '  is  there- 
fore by  no  means  certain  although  to  be  expected.  The  form  may 
signify  'approached.'  The  only  other  forms  at  all  similar  to  this  are 
those  cited  by  llagen:  \'\y...  I5eitra-e  ii.(Jl.  •erabuni'  and  \Vinckler, 
Keilschrifttexte.:;:;.  •irabbanni  '  =  •entrusted  to  me.' 

It  has  been  conjectured  that  this  passage  is  a  reference  to  the  Lydian 
campaign,  the  only  great  victory  bet-ween  the  sixth  and  tenth  years  of 
Nabonidus  for  which  the  Tigris  would  have  to  be  crossed.*  The 
advancer  of  this  theory  evidently  forgot  that  fully  two  months  would 
have  been  necessary  for  the  Persians  to  go  to  the  Halys,  whereas 
according  to  the  cuneiform  account,  Cyrus  collected  his  troops  in 
Nisan  (.March -April)  and  entered  the  enemy's  country  in  Iyar(May 

*  Compare  Floigl,  Cyrus  und  Herodot,  125,  who  supplies  'Isparda,'  =  Sardis  for  the 
name  of  the  place.  Unger,  however,  Kyaxares  und  Astyages,  p.  6,  objects  quite 
rightly  that  the  form  •  Isparda '  is  not  the  Babylonian  form,  which  would  have  been 
'Saparda.'  'Isparda'  is  the  form  found  in  the  Achaemenian  Inscriptions  of  the 
'  second  sort.' 

13 


98 

June).  The  short  space  of  time  occupied  on  the  march  shows  conclu- 
sively that  the  object  of  the  attack  cannot  have  been  Lydia,  but  was 
probably  some  country  necessary  ae  a  basis  of  operations  against,  that 
kingdom.  Because  of  the  doubtful  meaning  of  '  irab,'  there  is  even  no 
authority  for  supposing  that  this  place  is  on  the  west  bunk  of  the 
Tigris,  as  did  Evers,  Emporkommcn  der  persischen  IMacht,  !).  n.  1.  All 
that  we  can  say  is  that  the  land  to  which  (1yrus  went,  must,  have  bem 
below  Arbela,  not  far  from  the  Tigris.  Certainly  neither  Meyer's 
idea,  that  this  is  a  reference  to  the  battles  in  the  Median  provim-rs 
west  of  the  Euphrates,  Gesch.  p.  <>0:>,  nor  Winckler's  conclusion  that 
the  country  was  Singara  or  some  independent  state  between  the  rivers, 
is  satisfactory  (See  Untersuchungen,  131). 

L.  17.  oillit  sa  ramnisu.'  His  own  governor;  probably  a  shaphel 
feminine  formation  of  '  elu '  =  to  go  up.  'Sulit'  would  mean  '  one  who 
is  set  up  or  appointed,'  with  feminine  ending  as  in  '  pixatn  '  =  prefect, 
governor.  Hagen  translates  in  this  passage  'garrison,'  citing  Assyr. 
Worterbuch,  427.  1  Iff.  where  Delitzsch  demonstrates  that  '  sulu '  can 
mean  'bring  soldiers  into  a  fortress.'  We  may  note  hero,  that  the 
words  '  salutu,'  V  11.  11.  11  f.,  and  '  sulutu,'  Sennach.  c.  IV.  48.  =  lord- 
ship, usually  understood  as  derivatives  from  '  salu  "  to  decide  (Xim- 
mern,  Busspsalmen,  p.  99),  may  be  regarded  equally  well  as  abstract 
formations  from  the  shaphel  of  'elu.' 

L.  22.  ' Elammiya '  =  Elamite.  I  have  adopted  Hagen 's  translation 
here  as  being  preferable  to  the  attempts  of  former  translators  who 
understood  the  word  as  denoting  'Elam'  (see  Saycc,  Fresh  Light  ; 
Floigl,  Cyrus  und  Hcrodot.  58  ;  Halevy,  Melanges,  2.  etc.).  I  know  no 
other  example  of  a  gcntilic  ending  '  ya.' 

This  mutilated  passage  may  indicate  that  there  was  an  invasion  of 
the  Persians  from  the  side  of  Elam,  possiblj7  directed  against  Erech- 
linger,  Kyax.  und  Astyages,  7,  believed  this  passage,  11.  21-22,  to  refer 
to  the  invasion  of  Lydia.  The  situation  of  Erech  so  far  to  the  south- 
west, however,  would  preclude  the  possibility  of  an  attack  on  Lydia 
from  this  quarter. 

L.  23-4.  See  Delitzsch's  opinions  as  given  by  Hagen  regarding  the 
restoration  of  these  lines.  It  is  of  course  impossible  to  conjecture 
with  any  certainty  to  what  events  the  lines  missing  between  Cols.  II. 
and  III.  -referred.  Ilagen  suggested  with  some  show  of  reason  that  the 
Lydian  campaign  may  have  been  here  described.  AVe  have  seen  that 
the  country  alluded  to  in  1.  l(i  cannot  have;  been  Lydia.  (See  above 
note  to  Col.  II.  16.)  It  seems  probable,  therefore,  there  being  no  other 
place  in  the  A  nnals  for  the  allusion,  that,  if  there  were  any  reference  to 
the  Lydian  war  in  this  account,  it  would  have  been  just  before  the 
description  of  the  capture  of  Babylon  ;  i.  e.  just  before  (1ol.  III.  1 
cannot,  agree  with  Winckler's  conclusion  that,  because  the  chronicle 
gives  no  account  of  any  hostilities  in  the  seventh  and  eighth  years  ol' 
Nabonidus' reign,  the  Lydian  campaign  must  have  taken  place  during 


those  years,  [f  the  Annals  were  completely  preserved  we  should  cer- 
tainly expect  to  find  mention  made  of  so  important  a  campaign  as  the 
Lydian.  it  .-eems  permissible  to  suppose  that  the-  records  of  the 
seventh  and  eiuhth  years  are  silent,  because  no  events  of  tiny  impor- 
tance occurred  tit  thatf  time.  We  may  be  allowed  therefore,  pending 
further  discoveries,  to  place  the  Lydian  campaign  as  late  as  from  the 
twelfth  to  the  sixteenth  year  of  Nabonidus  and  to  conclude  that  the 
account  of  it  in  the  Annals  is  lost  with  the  missing  lines  at  the  end  of 
Col.  II. 

( 'nliimu  III. 

L.  7.  'tamtiim  BAL-tum' =  = 'Saplitum.'  For  this  use  of  BAL  cf. 
II  R.  30.  3.  c. '  An-ta-bal-ki '  =  = '  elitum  u  sapiltum  ;  in  II.  62.  63a.  ki- 
an-hal  =  ditto  (sa-pil-tnm  ?)  n  e-li-tum. 

L.  !l.  'Stir  .M;irad-da.'  For  'Maradda'  see  I  )elit/,scli.  Wo  lag  das 
I'aradies,  220  and  for  'KU'  op.  cit.  p.  21S.  '  Xamama  '  was  evidently 
from  this  passage  and  the  following,  the  chief  deity  of  l  Kis.'  The 
reading  is  still  uncertain.  For  tin-  name  compare  Il.(>1.52f.  'hit  za- 
ni:i-ni:i  -a  Kii,' written,  however,  with  the  ciiaracter  'ma,1  wmal,'  lga.' 

According  to  II  15.  7)7.70,  this  deity  is  ei|uivalent  to  Adar  (Ninib). 
(See  further  l>rmmow.  List.  No.  117U1.)  The  only  compound  known  to 
me  in  which  the  name  (u-mrs.  is  the  proper  name.  '  /amamanadinsiimii  ' 
kim:  ol'  Uabylon  and  eonteiniiorary  of  'Aviirdan.  the  grandfather  of 

Ti.lath  pileser  I.    (See  Tiele,  Geschichte,  loi.  148. 

L.  10.  '  Xafsankalama  '  was  the  cent  re  of  culture  for  the  old   '  sarrut 

kibrat  crbitti.'     Salmanassar    I  I.  and   Ti-lath  pileser    I  I  I .  offered  sacri 
lices  there.     (See    Lehiiiann.   '  Sama^umukin.    95,  97,  98  and  Delitzsch, 
I'aradies.    21!)). 

'Return.'  See  II  I !.:;:>.  (J2.  e.  = '  ki-i-tuni.'  (Uninnow.  List,  No. 
1513.) 

L.  11.  '  >a  eli  -anie  n  sapla  ^anie."  It  is  perfectly  possible  to  read 
'LM'  here  a<  in  II  R,.  50. 23.  when-  it  is  explained  by  '  sa-mu-u '  = 
heaven,  lla'jcn  I'catls  it  a-  'Sam'  =  wind,  and  translates  the  passage; 

' Akkad   of  the   part   above   as   well   as   that    below   the   '  Windrirli- 

bung(?),' referring  the  relative  'Sa'  to  'Akkadi.'  (See  IJritra^i,  ii.  p. 
24IJ.)  It  seems  to  me,  however,  possible  to  understand  '  sa  '  as  refer- 
rim:  tn  'ilani.'  ETagen's  objection  to  the  translation,  'above  and  below 
the  atmosphere.'  applied  to  images  <if  the  deitio.  does  not  really  hold 
irnod.  \Vliy  may  the  reference  not  be  to  the  images  of  the  lilijhcr  and 
/nidi-  ijods  ;  i.  e.  of  those  <i/>»r<  and  those  l><l<nr  the  vault  of  the 

heaven?  (For  the  Babylonian  heaven,  see  Jensen.  Kosmologie,  pp. 
4  10.) 

L.  12.  '  rpeki  ='0pis.5     So  Tincho    see  literature  cited  by  Hagen, 

I'.eiira-e.  ii.  2i:J2H  an<l  note  1.  llommel,  (iesch.  7S5  read  'Kis;' 
others  'Hutu,'  a  place  in  S.  Babylonia.  So  Halevy,  Melanges,  3; 
SaycM',  Fresh  Lidit.  171.  and  iormerly  Pinches,  Transactions,  vii.  174. 
n.  1.  (See  also  IJudin.ii.er.  op.  cit.  12  ;  Evers,  op.  cit.  13,  n.  1.) 


LOO 

1  Sal  sail  at.'  The  situation  of  this  canal(?)  is  doubtful.  It  seems 
probable  according  to  llauen  that  the  first  conflict  took  place  at  Opis, 
after  which  the  Babylonians  under  Belsarucur  retired  to  the  '  Salsallat,' 
where  they  were  defeated. 

L.  14.  With  regard  to  the  reading  of  '  BAL,'  I  fully  agree  with 
Hagen,  op.  cit.,  244. 

L.  15.  Gutium,  according  to  Delit/sch,  Paradies,  233,  was  the  upper 
region  of  the  Adhem  and  Diyala.  Compare  in  this  connection  the 
tablet  cited  by  Hagen,  8 1-7-27- 22  which  plainly  places  Gutium  between 
Akkad  and  Flam.  The  province  may  have  included  the  sources  of  the 
Adhem.  The  Guti  were  nomads  on  the  Assyro-Babylonian  border  in 
Asurbanipal's  time.  (See  Tiele,  Gesch.  378.)  'Agumkakrime  '  refers 
in  V  R.  33.  c.  1.  38.  to  '  Alman  sar  mat  Gu-ti-i  ni.se  saklati,'  for  whom 
see  Delit/sch,  Paradies,  205.  (Keilinschr.  Bibl.,  iii.  1.  137.) 

L.  16.  '  tukku  '  =  shield  is  possibly  from  |/'  taku  '  =  to  lift  up,  syno- 
nym of  'nasuV  (See  Delitzsch,  Beitrage,  i.  198.)  It  seems  to  be  a 
form  like  k  surru '  — beginning,  from  -/  saru.'  The  '  su  '  before  the 
word  is,  as  Hagen  points  out,  merely  the  determinative  for  skin  or 
leather,  of  which  shields  were  made.  The  former  reading  '  sutukku ' 
was  as  incorrect  as  the  reading  '  sunadi  '  in  I  H.  Sennach.  III.  80,  for 
1  sunade,'  where  'su '  is  '  masku,'  determinative,  and  'nade  '  is  plural  of 
'  nadu'  =  HfrO  =  bottle,  i.  e.  leather  bottles. 

L.  17.  The  troops  of  Gobryas  had  surrounded  the  temples,  perhaps  to 
prevent  any  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  Babylonians  who  might  organize 
a  rebellion  to  use  the  temples  and  shrines  as  storehouses  for  arms.  The 
exact  sense  of  the  line  is  not  clear.  Tiele,  Geschichte,  472.  n.  3, 
believed  that  the  remnant  of  the  Babylonian  party  had  taken  refuge  in 
the  great  temple  of  Esaggil  which  was  consequently  besieged  by  troops 
of  Gutium.  The  idea  of  Pinches,  Transactions,  and  Sayce,  Fresh 
Light,  171,  that  this  passage  records  a  rebellion  of  the  troops  of 
Gutium  against  Cyrus  is  most  improbable. 

'  be  -la  '  =  weapons.  See  III.  66.  c.  III.  13.  'bi-e-la-a.'  The  usual 
plural  form  is  of  course  'bele,'  cf.  I  11.  47.  c.  VI  48  ;  IV  11.  48.  1.  a  ;  V 
R.  5.  62. 

L.  18.  'simanu'  means  standard;  cf.  Sennach.  Prism.  V  78-79; 
'  kima  mixi  gabsi  sa  samutum  sirnani  u  munnisunu  usarda  cir  erciti 
sadilti  ;'  like  a  mighty  storm  of  violent  rain  1  made  their  standards 
arid  '  munni '  (weapons  ?)  be  strewn  over  the  wide  earth.  In  connection 
with  the  passage,  11.  17-18  in  the  Annals,  compare  especially  VR.  6.  17. 
'bele  qarabi,  simanii  u  minima  epes  taxa/i.'  'Simanu'  is  a  formation 
from  the  stem  '  asamu,'  |/' wasama,'  like  '  lidanu  '  from  'alAdn,'  t  k  \\alada,' 

L.  19.  '  xarine  ina  panisu  irpuduni'  =  the  'xarine'  lay  down  before 
him,  i.  e.  in  homage.  The  word  'xarine'  lias  not  yet  been  found  else- 
where. It  may  denote  some  sort  of  officials  or  nol>les(?). 

L.  2)!.  Krom  a  new  collation  of  the  inscription  Prof.  Friedrieh 
Delit/sch  has  recently  explained  this  passage  as  a  record  of  the  slaying 


101 

of  tlio  king's  son.  lie  says  that  at  the-  beginning  of  1.  23  he  believes 
that  lit1  saw  plainly  the  sign  TU11,  before  which,  however,  was  a  very 
narrow  sign  like  '  si'  <>r  '§a.'  '  Sa  '  being  the  more  probable  reading,  he 
proposes,  pending  further  discoveries,  to  read  '  ina  inuxxi  SA;'  i.  e. 
"issakin  ;'  i.  e.  he  went  against  and  killed  the  king's  son.  See  Hagen, 
op.  cit.  p.  '2\~. 

The  former  tendency  was  to  refer  this  passage  to  the  death  of  the 
king  or  of  his  wife.  Budinger,  Die  neucntdcckten  Inschriften  liber 
Cyrus,  14.,  levers,  Das  Kmporkommen  der  persischen  Maclit  unter  Cy- 
rus,  and  Ilalevy.  .Melanges.  4.  all  considered  this  line  to  refer  to  the 
death  of  Nabonidus.  Meinhold.  Diss.  .">(>.  n.  2,  referred  the  allusion  to 
Belshazzar,  reading  k  the  king  died,  and  considering  him  king  of  the 
city.  \Vincklcr.  Dntersuchungen,  p.  1").")  gives  traces  of  the  sign  'DAM 
=  assatu  =  wife  (also  Pinc-hes)  which  would  give  the  reading  '  the  wife 
of  the  king  died.' 

For  discussion  regarding  the  death  of  l>elsha//ar,  see  above. 

L.  24.  'qaqqadsunu  ilbinuni.'  'cast  down  their  heads  in  deep  grief 

cf.  the  familiar  '  labanu  appi '—casting  down  of  tin-  face  in  worship, 
ASKT.,115,2;  so,  14;  V  R.10.31;  [  V  R.  26. 66.  b ;  also  I  U,  Anp. 
II.  b'51, 'ina  labana  —  '  with  prayer.' 

Column  IV. 

L.  (i.  'bit  niilliiniil  most  probably  the  college  of  sages,  priests  of 
Ka.  attached  to  the  court  and  dedicated  to  |<]a  as  god  of  supreme  wis- 
dom ;  cf.  V.  (!">.  '.\'l.  where  Xabonidus  speaks  of  having  collected  the 
Yii<|Ati  ;Uih  bit  ninnimu  '  and  1  V  '-.\.  n.  I.e.  I  V.  '1~*  :  '  eniima  alpa  ana  bit 
mummu  tu>eribu.'  In  the  inscription  of  Merodach  IJala-lan  II..  pub- 
lished by  I'eiser  and  \\'inckler.  Keilinschr.  Hibliothek,  iii.  1.  p.  1S(J. 
1.  ").  b.  Ma  himself  is  called  the  '  ninnimu  ban  kala  '  =  source  of  wisdom, 
creating  all  things.  'Mummu'  18  undoubtedly  the  '  .M<.<r,/"<  '  of  hamas- 
cins.  CDe  primis  principiis.'  Cap.  12.")).  It  is  probably  a  reduplication 
of  '  mu  '  =  water  i.  6.  11111  +  11111  (llatipt).  I  n  ASKT.  Syl.  51,'!.  we  iind 
'mummu'  and  'shiitnm'  rxplained  by  the  same  ideogram.  Ka  being 
tin-  -oil  of  the  deep  and  of  wisdom  it  would  be  peculiarly  appropriate 
that  his  sanctuary  be  called  '  the  house  of  t he  waters/  The  term  'mum- 
mu. then,  by  a  natural  development  of  ideas,  came  to  mean  'wisdom 
or 'art.'  1  see  no  reason,  therefore,  with  Jensen.  Kosm.  .'ȣJ,  to  dis- 
tinguish two  words  'mummu  ;'  the  one  being  the  same  stem  as  in  '  um- 
manu  '  —  art  isan(?) ;  i.e.  |tDN  •  '"  V  '-*.  '»•''•  -''•  we  find  '  mummu  '  = 
1  bi-cl-tmn.'  a  word  which  may  In-  a  derivative  from  the  stem  v/'TO  — 
be  moist  and  then  plenteous  :  of.  bnlu  =  cattle,  F  II.  27.  G2.  b.;  Tiglath. 
c.  VI.  S2.  etc.  The  Hebr.  ^VQ  means  offspring,  l  proventus,'  and 
rian  'biiltu'  =  sexual  power.  (See  ASKT.  81.  10.,  IV  11.  2.  17. 
1>.  e.  ' -allu  sabTiltula  isn,  the  demons  who  have  no  sexual  power; 
also  |  K.  Senn.  Vl.l:  Fast  India  I  louse  I  user.  c.  I  X.  .Tl.  and  Deluge,  1. 
"J.'!.'!  -cubat  bultisii  =  the  garment  of  his  private  parts.) 


APPENDIX    II. 


TRANSLATION  OF  THE  FIFTH  CHAPTER  OF 
DANIEL.* 

(1>Belshazzara)1,  the  kins,  gave  a  great  feastll)2  to  a  thousand  of  his 
lords  and  in  the  presence  of  the  thousand  drank  wine.  (2)Belshazzar 
commanded,  being  under  the  influence  of  the  wine'1,  to  bring  the 
vessels13  of  gold  and  silver  which  Nebuchadnezzar  his  father  had  taken 
from  the  temple  which  was  in  Jerusalem,  in  order  that  the  king  and 
his  wives0  and  his  concubines  might  drink  out  of  them1.  (3)Then  they 
brought  the  vessels  of  gold  which  they  had  taken  away  from  the  temple 
of  the  house  of  God,  which  is  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  king  and  his  lords, 
his  wives1  and  his  concubines  drank  out  of  them2.  (4)They  drank  wine 
and  praised  the  gods  of  gold  and  silver,  brass,  iron,  wood,  and  stone. 

(5)At  that  same  moment  came  forthll)  fingers  of  a  man's  hand  and 
wrote  opposite101  the  chandelier  on  the  plaster'02  of  the  wall'0  of  the 
king's  palace  ;  and  the  king  saw  the  hande)  which  wrote.  (6)Then  the 
king  changed  color10  and  his  thoughts  terrified  him  and  the  joints  of 
his  hips  were  loosened1  and  his  knees  knocked  one  against  the  other-. 
(7)The  king  called  with  a  loud  voice  to  summon  the  magicians,  the 
Chaldseans1  and  the  horoscopists.  The  king  spoke  and  said  to  the 
wise  men  of  Babylon  that  any  man  who  could  read  this  writing  and 
show  its  interpretation'0  should  wear2  scarlet:jb)  and  a  chain4  of  gold  upon 
his  neck  and  should  rule  as  thirdc)  in  rank  in  the  kingdom0.  (8)Theri 
all  the  wise  men  came  in,  but  could  not  read  the  writing  nor  show  its 
interpretation  to  the  king.  ((JjThen  the  king  Belshax/ar  was  greatly 
disturbed  and  his  color  changed  and  his  lords  were  confounded*. 

(10)But  the  queen1  entered  the  banquet  hall  by  reason  of  the  exclama- 
tions2 of  the  king  and  his  lords  and  the  queen  spoke 'and  said:  () 
King,  live  forever3;  let  not  thy  thoughts  terrify  thee  nor  thy  color  be 
(•hanged.  (11)There  is:i)a  man  in  thy  kingdom  in  whom  is  the  spirit  of 
the  holy  gods  and  in  the  days  of  thy  father  enlightenment  and  under- 
standing :md  wisdom  like  the  wisdom  of  the  gods  were  found  in  him, 
and  the  king  Nebuchadnezzar  thy  father  appointed  him  chief  of  the 
hierogrammatistslb),  the  magicians,  the  riialdu'ans,  and  the  horoseopists 
— aye  even  the  king  thy  father2.  (1'^l>ecause  an  extraordinary  power 
and  knowledge  and  understanding  to  interpret0  dreams  and  to  show 
hidden  matters  and  to  solve  riddles  were  found  in  Daniel  whom  the 

*  The  numerical  references  refer  to  the  critical  notes  and  the  letters  to  the 
appended  linguistic  remarks. 


103 

king  called  Beltesha/./ar1'0;  so  let   Daniel  bo  summoned,  in  order  that 
In-  may  show  the  interpretation. 

<13)Then  Daniel  was  brought  in  before  the  kin-  (and)  the  king  spoke 
u ml  said  :  So  thou  art  Daniel1  of  the  sons  of  the  exiles  of  Judah, 
whom2  the  king  my  father  brought  tlmm  .lud.-ea.  ^1  have  heard  con- 
cerning thee  that  the  spirit  of  tlie  gods  is  in  thee  and  that  enlighten- 
ment and  understanding  and  extraordinary  skill  are  found  in  thee. 
1  'A  nd  now  the  wise  men  (and)1  the  magicians  have  heen  brought  in 
before  me.  in  order  that  they  should  read  this  writing  and  make  known 
its  interpretation  to  me.  but  they  are  not  abb-  to  show  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  thing.  ll!l'IJut  1  have  heard  concerning  thee  that  thou  art 
able  to  make  interpretations  and  solve  riddles.  So  if  tlmn  canst  read 
the  writing  and  make  known  to  me  its  interpretation,  tlum  shalt  wear 
scarlet  and  a  chain  of  gold  upon  thy  neck  and  shalt  rule  as  the  third  in 
rank  in  the  kingdom. 

(17)Then  Daniel  answered  and  said  before  the  king:  Let  thy  gifts  be'l) 
to  thyself1  and  give  thy  pre<ents  to  another;  yet  I  will  read  the  writing 
for  the  king  and  will  make  known  the  interpretation  to  him-.  (18>0 
King1,  the  .Most  High  (iod  gave  a  kingdom  and  greatness  and  glory  and 
might  unto  Nebuchadne/./ar  thy  father'-'.  '"'-"And  on  account  of  the 
greatness  which  lie  gave  him.  all  peoples,  nations  and  languages  were 
trembling"  and  fearing  bcfor"  him.  Whomsoever  he  would'  he  killed 
and  whomsoever  he  would  he  kept  alive  ;  and  whomsoever  he  would  he 
exalted  and  whomsoever  he  would  he  brought  low.  '-'"IJut  when  his 
heart  was  high  and  his  spirit  was  haughty  with  pride,  lie  was  hurled 
from  the  throne  of  his  kingdom  and  they  took  his  glory  from  him, 
'-''and  he  wa>  CftSl  out  '  from  among  the  children  of  men  and  his  reason 
wa-  made  like'1  to  the  beasts  and  hisdwelling  was  with  the  herds1.  They 
fed  him  gras>  like  oxen  and  his  body  was  moist  with  tin-dew  of  the  heav 
ens.  until  he  discovered  that  the  .Most  High  (!o«l  is  ruler  over  the  king- 
doin  of  men.  and  that  whomsoever  lie  will  lie  appoints  over  it-.  ''-"-''IJut 
thou  Belshazzar  his  >on  hast  not  humbled  thine  heart  although  fliou 
knewestall  this.  (-:!'IJnt  thou  ha>t  exalted  thyself  agai  n>t  the  Lord  of 
the  heavens  and  they  have  brought  the  vessels  of  His  house  before 
thee;  and  thou  and  thy  lords,  thy  wives  and  concubine-;  were  drinking 
wine  from  them,  and  thou  hast  praised  the  gods  of  silver  and  gold,  of 
brass,  iron,  wood,  and  stone,  which  neither  see.  nor  hear,  nor  notice1; 
but  the  (iod  in  whose  hand  are  thy  life  and  all  thy  paths-,  Him  thou 
hast  not  honored.  '-^Theu1  the  hand  was  sent  forth  from  Him  and 
this  writing  was  engraved. 

(25)And  this  is  the  writing  which  was  written  :  There  have  been 
counted  a  mina.  a  shekel  and  two  half  ininas.1 1  (2G)This  is  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  thing  :  Miua  (Iod  has  counted  thy  kingdom  and  fin- 
ished it,  '-"'Shekel  thou  ha-t  been  weighed  in  the  balances  and  found 
wanting.  (2K)Half-mina  thy  kingdom  has  been  divided  and  given  to 
the  Medes  and  Persians.1 


104 

(29>The.n  IVlsha/zar  gave  orders  to  clothe1  Daniel  in  scarlet  and  a 
chain  of  gold  about  his  neck  and  that  they  should  proclaim  publicly 
concerning  him  that  he  be  the  third  ruler  in  the  kingdom.  (30)ln  that 
same  night  waa  Belshazzar  king  of  tin;  Chaldseans  slain  (:}l)and  Darius 
the  Median  received  the  kingdom,  being  sixty-two  years  old. 

COMMENTARY   ON   DANIEL    V. 
CRITICAL    NOTES. 

Verse  1.  Note  1. — Belshazzar,  as  stated  before,  is  identical  with 
Helsarugur,  the  son  of  Nabonidus  the  last  king  of  Babylon. 

Note  2. — At  such  a  feast  the  king  would  probably  sit  facing  his  lords 
at  a  separate  table ;  cf .  I.  Sam.  20,  25  where  the  king  sat  during  his 
meal  on  a  special  seat  by  the  wall,  and  in  this  connection,  see  also  fig. 
33  in  Kaulen's  Assyrien  und  Babylonien,  p.  54,  representing  an  A 
ian  king  taking  his  meal  surrounded  by  his  servants  and  protected  by 
the  gods.  According  to  Athenneus,  Deipnosophistae,  Bk.  IV.  26  on 
the  authority  of  Heraclides  of  Cuma  in  the  second  part  of  his  Paras- 
keuastika,  this  was  also  the  custom  of  the  Persian  kings  at  festivals. 
(Cf.  v.  Lengerke,  Daniel,  p.  243.)  Posidonius  (100  B.  C.)— De  Parth.  I. 
v.  in  Athen.  4.  38,  quoted  Pusey,  383  n.  2— gives  the  same  account  of  the 
Parthians.  For  ancient  customs  regarding  the  royal  table  see  further 
Jahn,  Biblical  Archeology,  transl.  by  Upham  (1849),  I  227.  'In  the 
presence  of  =  before,  facing  them.  0  has  l  Karlvavrt.'  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  translate  by  'propinare  '  with  Bertholdt,  Dan.  364,  Havernick, 
Dan.  174,  etc. 

Verse  2.  Note  1. — The  author  evidently  regarded  this  as  a  ter- 
rible profanation  (see  v.  23).  Haverniek's  strange  idea  (Dan.,  175  ff.) 
that  Belshazzar  wished  to  honor  Jehovah  by  using  the  sacred  vessels, 
finds  no  confirmation  in  the  text.  That  the  vessels  were  not  sent  for 
until  the  king  was  well  in  his  cups,  seems  to  show  that  the  author 
wished  to  represent  the  command  as  a  drunken  whim.  These  vessels 
were  brought  to  Babylon  by  Nebuchadnezzar  at  the  time  of  the 
first  capture  of  Jerusalem  (597  B.  C.)  in  the  reign  of  Jeconiah  (II. 
Kings  24.  13),  and  were  restored  by  Cyrus  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign 
at  the  time  of  the  return  of  the  exiles.  (Kzra  1.  7ff.) 

Verse  3.  Note  1. — The  wife  of  the  king  who  held  the  rank  of  queen 
was  among  the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians  usually  she  who  bore  the 
first  son.  (Delitzsch-Miirdtcr,  Geschichte  Babyloniens  und  Assyricns- 
p.  118.)  As  it  is  well  known  that  the  greatest,  freedom  of  life  pre- 
vailed at  Babylon,  especially  with  regard  to  the  relations  between  the 
sexes,  there  is  nothing  incongruous  in  the  statement  that  women  were 
present  at  feasts.  According  to  Curtius  5.  5,  they  were  admitted  to 
drinking  bouts.  He  says  with  respect  to  the  shocking  immorality  of 
the  women  at  these  feasts;  '  lA'ininarnm  convivia  inenntinin  in  princi 
pio  modest, us  est  habitus  :  dein  siininia  quaeque  ainicnla  exmmt,  panla- 
piidorem  profanant  ;  ad  iiltininni  (honos  auribns  sit)  ima  cor- 


105 

porum  vclamonto  projiciunt :  nee  meretricum  hoc  dcdecus  est  sed  matro- 
narum  virginumque  apud  quas  comites  habetur  vulgati  corporis  vilitas.' 

llegavdin.ir  the  Persian  customs  in  this  matter,  accounts  vary.  Ac- 
cording to  Joscphus  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  proper  for  women  to 
•"ii  by  strangers.  (See  Antiquities,  xi.  6.  1,  referring  to  Esther  i. 
10-12,  the  refusal  of  Yashti  to  obey  the  king's  command  to  present 
If  before  him  and  his  lords.)  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  record  of 
Esther  can  be  trusted  thus  far.  the  queen  consort  seems  to  have  been 
able  to  invite  men  high  in  rank  to  dint1  with  her  and  the  king  (Esther 
v.).  In  Herodotus,  too  (.").  IS!),  it  is  stated  that  not  only  the  concubines, 
but  also  the  young  wives  were  accustomed  to  be  present  at  Persian 
bs.  Plutarch,  however,  asserts  iSympos.  I.  1.)  that  concubines 
wen- allowed  at  feasts  but  not  wives.  (See  Pusey,  Daniel,  382.  n.  2.) 
This  statement  was  applied  to  the  Parthian s  by  Maerobius,  Saturnalia, 
Lib.  7.  1..  cited  by  Ilavernick.  Dan.  ISO.  (Compare  Justin,  41.  3). 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  Septnagint  makes  no  mention  of  the 
presence  of  women  in  this  passage  of  Daniel.  TTavernick.  Dan.  ISO, 
thought  that  the  translator  deliberately  omitted  it,  as  being  repugnant 
to  his  ideas  of  propriety. 

Note  2.  -'H.d  example  of  the  repetition  of  the  narrative 

Style.       One  rmlex   olllits   it    alto-ether,     -see    HerthoMt,    I  )a  1)  iel,  .'JUS.   11.  4. 

Verse  5.  Note  1.  Opposite  the  light  where  the  writing  could  be 
most  easily  seen. 

There  is  a  double  (Jreek  translation  of  vv.  1.  4  and  ^  (for  the  variants 
see  Pnsey.  Daniel.  502 '.      In  this   verse   the  words    written    on    the    wall 
are  transferred  from  verse  *1~)  and  the  following  interpretation  is  given  : 
'mane'— it   is  numbered;  '  phares  ' — it   is  taken    away  and,  k  thekel  '- 
it  is  weighed.     (See  note  to  v.  '2^.) 

No!  lain  stucco  work  or  simple  painted  plaster.      In  the  ruins 

of  the  palace  at  Nimroud  a  thin  coatiu-  of  painted  plaster  was  discov- 
ered by  Layard.  the  colors  of  which  when  first  found  were  still  fresh 
and  brilliant.  (Nineveh  2.  2"'  [go  Kaulen.  Assyrien  mid  Uaby- 

lonien.  ]>.  f>2  ;  10!);  2(12.)  The  interior  of  the  later  Babylonian  houses 
Was  frequently  painted,  on  the  lower  half  of  the  wall  more  in  figures, 
but  above  ornamentally.  (See  Heber.  /eitschr.  fur  Assyriologie,  i.  W.I). 
That  plaster  mixed  with  ashes  was  used  for  mortar  is  evident  from  the 
ruins  of  IT  (Mugheir).  but  it  is  probably  a  later  development.  (So 
lieher,  op.  cit.,  145.) 

Plaster  seems  to  have  been  known  also  in  Palestine;  cf.  Josephus, 
Antiquities,  viii.  ~y.  2.,  describing  Solomon's  palace — 'but  the  other  part 
up  to  the  roof  was  plastered  over  and,  as  it  were,  embroidered  with 
colours  ami  pictures.'  (In  this  connection  cf.  Jahn,  op.  cit.,  \  3!).) 

The  feast  of  Pxdshax/ar  is  represented  by  the  author  to  be  in  a  room 
or  hall,  and  not  necessarily  in  a  garden  (v.  Lengerke,  247),  or  pavilion 
(lia\ernick.  is]).     He/el  (cited  Bertholdt,  Daniel,  30!))  thought  that  it 
was  in  the  inner  court  of  the  palace (?). 
14 


106 

\  erse  6.  Note  1.  —  Some  of  the  interpretations  of  the  older  commen- 
tators are  very  grotesque.  For  example,  Grotius  and  Maldonatus,  under- 
standing 'loins'  as  the  private  parts,  translated  'urina  defluebat.'  It 
may  he  interesting  in  this  connection  to  compare  the  famous  passage  of 
the  prism  inscription  of  Sennacherib;  Col.  6.  11.19,20,21;  Itarraku 
libbusun  simttisun  ucarrapu  qirib  narkabatisunu  umassiru  nicuisun  ; 
'Their  heart  failed  them  ;  with  their  urine  they  soiled  their  chariots. 
They  let  their  excrement  fall.'  See  Schrader's  Keilinschriftliche 
Bibliothek,  ii.  pp.  110,  111.  Sanctius  (quoted  Havernick,  Dan.  184) 
thought  that  the  passage  in  Daniel  referred  to  an  l  emissio  seminis' 
from  fear  !  For  the  expression  of  violent  emotions  of  fear  and  suffer- 
ing ascribed  to  the  loins  see  Ezekiel  xxi.  12  : 


.  24    j-iypn  Ton 

Compare  also  Deut.  xxxiii.  11  :  V£p  0*3/10  THO  —  i-  e.  put  them  to 
confusion  ;    Isaiah    xxi.    3  :    OH  V  rf?nfO    'l^D    W^D     ]3~ty 

rn'ttriD  *rf?iii)  j?bt?p  't^frrfff  n*V?  WIN  and 

Nahum    ii.  2,  referring  to  Nineveh  :  ' 

:*vnNfl  W3p  D1??  ^51 

Note  2.  —  Theodotion  omits  the  translation  of  Jtf"Y?  ^1  —  'one  against 
another,'  but  another  version  has  TOVTO  TOVTU.  See  Field,  Hexapla  Cod- 
87. 

Verse  7.  Note  1.  —  The  author  applies  the  term  uChaldrcan  "  some- 
times to  the  ruling  people  of  Babylon,  as  in  ch.  iii.  8  ;  v.  30  ;  ix.  1,  but 
much  oftener  uses  the  name,  as  here,  to  denote  a  class  of  magicians,  or 
as  a  general  term  for  all  magicians. 

It  is  a  common  error  to  consider  the  name  Chaldean  as  synonymous 
with  "Babylonian  "  or  even  "Old  Babylonian."  The  Chaldaeans  were 
clearly  in  ancient  times  a  people  quite  distinct  from  the  inhabitants  of 
Babylonia.  Their  exact  origin  is  extremely  uncertain.  It  may  be  con- 
jectured with  Winckler  (Untersuchungen,  48),  judging  from  the  Semitic 
character  of  their  proper  names,  that  they  were  a  Semitic  people,  or 
with  Jensen  (see  Lchmann  —  Samassumukin,  p.  173),  that  they  were 
"  Semitised  Sumerians,"  i.  e.  a  non-Semitic  race  which  by  contact  with 
Semitic  influences  had  lost  its  original  character.  It  seems  probable 
that  they  came  first  from  the  South  at  a  very  early  date,  along  the  coast 
of  the  Persian  Gulf.  (For  the  old  opinion  of  Gesenius,  Heeren,  Nie- 
buhr,  etc.,  that  the  Kaldi  came  from  Armenia  and  Kurdistan  and  con- 
quered Babylon  shortly  before  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  see  Tiele, 
(iochichte,  65.).  Having  settled  in  the  region  about  Ur  (.  .  .  *V|fr$ 
D*"lt^D),  they  began  a  series  of  encroachments  on  the  Babylonians 
proper,  which  after  many  centuries  ended  in  the  Chald.-ean  supremacy 
under  Nabopolassar  and  his  successors.  (That  Nabopolassar  was  a 
Chahhran,  see  Tiele,  op.  cit.  421  ;  Winckler,  op.  cit,  (>()  tr'.,  and  for  the 


107 

history  of  the  rise  and  development  of  the  Chaldsean  power,  compare 
Tiele<;:>;  207 ;  211;  286  ;  287;  362;  422;  Winckler,  op.  cit.,  pp.  47-04 : 
Pelattre,  -  Lea  riialdeens,"  Paris,  1877.) 

The  peculiar  use  of  the  name  "  Chaldaean  "  in  this  passage  of  Daniel, 
to  denote  a  class  of  magicians,  is  not  only  entirely  foreign  to  the  usage 
of  the  ( )ld  Testament,  but  is  peculiar  to  the  Greek  and  Roman  writers. 
The  term  Xd/i'uim  is  used,  for  example,  by  Herodotus  to  denote  the 
priestly  class  of  T>abylonia,  from  whom  he  got  his  historical  informa- 
tion. This  transfer  of  the  name  of  the  people  to  a  special  class  is  prob- 
ably to  be  explained  in  the  following  manner. 

The  sudden  rise  of  the  Babylonian  Empire  under  the  Chaldaean  rule 
ol'  Nebuchadnezzar,  son  of  Xabopolassar,  tended  to  produce  so  thorough 
an  amalgamation  of  the  Chaldaeans  and  Babylonians  who  had  hitherto 
been  racially  distinct,  that,  in  the  course  of  time,  no  perceptible  differ- 
ences existed  between  the  two  peoples.  The  name  "  Chaldaean,"  how- 
ever, lived  on  in  the  restricted  sense  already  mentioned  and  for  the 
following  reasons.  The  Kaldi  had  sei/.ed  and  held  from  most  ancient 
times  tlie  region  of  old  Sinner,  the  centre  of  the  non-Semitic  culture. 
(See  Lehmann,  op.  cit.,  173.)  It  seems  extremely  probable  that  they 
were  >o  strongly  influenced  by  this  superior  civili/.ation  as  to  eventually 
adopt  it  as  their  own.  and.  as  they  were  the  dominant  race,  the  priot-ly 
ca>te  of  that  region  became  a  Chaldican  institution.  It  i-  reasonable 
to  conjecture  that  Southern  I>abylonia.  the  home  of  the  old  culture, 
supplied  IJabylon  and  other  important  cities  with  priests,  who  from 
their  descent  were  correctly  called  ( 1hald;ean>  ;  a  name  which  in  later 

times,  owing  to  the  amalgamation  of  the  Chaldaaans  and   Babylonians 

when  the  term  had  lost  its  national  force,  became  a  distinctive  appella- 
tion of  the  priestly  easle.  (Compare  in  this  connection  (lutbrod, 
Xtschr.  fur  Assyriolngie.  vi.  pp.  2!  Ml'.  Lehmann.  op.  cit.  \~'.>,  and  I  )e 
lattre.  (Mialdeens,  pp.  2! I  .'!!.)  It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  remark 
here  that.  La-arde.  thinking  of  DfT^i*  "UH  IT)1?.}  Isaiah  xiv.  1  and 
iTl!T  ^N*  nV'MI  "O^l  p  l^iali  Ivi.  •>.  believed  that  the  original 
Levites  or  Jewish  religious  caste  were  those  Kgyptians  who  had  gone 
with  the  Israelites  in  their  exodus  from  Kgypt,  That  Egyptians  went 
out  with  Moses  is  probable  from  Ivxodiis  xii.  :;s  (Numbers  xi.4?),  and 
that  Egyptian  influence  is  traceable  in  Israel  appears  evident  from  the 
examples  Cited  by  Lagardr.  He  believed  that  .Moses  was  an  Kgyptian 
and  treated  the  account  of  his  birth  and  exposure  (Hxodus  i.  1-10)  as  a 
fable  similar  to  the  Persian  story  that  Alexander  the  ( i  reat  was  a  son  of 
Darius.  If  Lagarde's  theory  be  true,  it  explains  why  Moses  found  his 
chief  support  in  the  Levites.  his  fellow  countrymen.  Lagarde  goes  on 
to  say  that  if  the  Levites  were  Egyptians,  this  explains  why  they  were 
able  to  govern  the  Irsaelitish  nation;  i.e.  by  virtue  of  their  higher 
culture  ;  it  shows  why  the  Levites  do  not  appear  as  a  regular  tribe, 
and  finally,  it  explains  what  the  Egyptian  sources  relate  about  the 
Hebrew  exodu.s.  (See  Lagarde  Symm.  2.  35  and  in  connection  with 


108 

this  theory  cf.  also  Orientalia,  H.  2.  1880,  pp.  20-21  and  Meyer, 
Geschichte,  I.  3776.) 

The  Chaldaean  priestly  caste  was  in  all  probability  an  hereditary 
order,  as  Diodorus  Siculus  (II.  29)  stated.  According  to  the  same 
authority  the  priests  were  divided  into  three  classes  ;  first,  those  who 
celebrated  sacrifices  and  performed  purifications,  secondly,  those  who 
recited  incantations  to  keep  off  evil  spirits,  and  finally,  those  who 
explained  portents  and  dreams.  (See  Tiele,  Geschichte,  546.)  This 
division  is,  as  Tiele  remarks,  not  contradicted  by  the  inscriptions, 
although  it  cannot  be  known  with  certainty  what  Assyrian  names  may 
correspond  to  each  of  these  classes.  The  scribes  (Tupsarre),  whose 
tutelary  deity  was  Nebo,  were  also  a  priestly  class,  from  whom  all  the 
literature  of  the  times  proceeded- 

Note  2. — This  translation  seems  perfectly  clear,  as  already  Bertholdt 
saw  (Daniel,  372-373.).  He  translated  it:  'Der  darf  den  Purpur- 
rnantel  und  den  goldenen  Halsschmuck  tragen.'  There  is  no  need  to 
supply  '  have  '  as  does  our  Authorized  Version. 

Note  3. — The  darker  purple  scarlet  was  a  color  held  in  high  esteem 
in  antiquity.  Compare  Ezekiel  xxvii.  7  ;  Esther  viii.  15,  Herodotus 
3.  20,  and  Xenophon,  Cyropaedia  1.  3.  2  :  8.  5.  18.  We  may  remember 
the  '  purpurati '  of  the  Persian  kings  who  wore  the  /cavJuf .  Oriental 
sovereigns  sent  robes  of  this  color  to  their  vassals  very  much  as  the 
popes  sent  the  pallium  in  the  middle  ages  (I  Maccabees  x.  20:  xiv. 
43.  44.).  The  Syriac  chronicle  of  the  Jacobite  primate  Gregory  Bar 
Hebraeus  (1226-1286)  relates  how  the  Sultan  Masud  sent  a  purple  robe 
to  a  favorite  who  had  done  him  a  service  (cf.  Havernick,  Dan.  187.) 

Note  4. — A  gold  chain  seems  to  have  been  worn  by  the  higher  class 
Persians  (Xenophon,  Anab.  1.  8.  29).  It  was  given  as  a  sign  of  special 
favor  (cf.  Herodotus,  3.  20  :  Anabasis,  1.  27,  and  Jahn,  op.  cit.  $130). 

Note  5. — Third  in  rank,  i.  e.  after  Nabonidus  and  Belshazzar.  Prob- 
ably not  "  one  of  the  board  of  three,"  following  chapter  vi.  3,  although 
the  translation  is  possible.  Compare  Kranichfeld,  9.  21 ;  Hitzig,  81, 
and  lately  Prof.  Siegfried— Theologische  Literaturzeitung,  Jan.  10, 
1891,  where  he  takes  exception  to  Diisterwald's  translation  '  third  in 
rank '  (Review  of  Diisterwald,  Die  Weltreiche  und  das  Gottesreich 
nach  den  Weissagungen  des  Propheten  Daniels,  p.  63— cf.  also  Driver, 
Introduction,  460).  Jerome  remarked  '  vel  tertius  post  me,  vel  unus  a 
tribus  principibus  quos  alibi  urpior&rag"  legimus.'  LXX.  'l^omm  rov 

TP'ITOV  fttpovc  Tf/q  j1aai'/.t-;i<tr.      ().      Tpiro^  tv  ri/   , iaatfai a   iiov  ap^et.     (Cf.  Joso 

phus  Antiquities,  x.  11.3.)  The  Syriac  has  '  w'thul'tlia  iicshlt.'  The 
old  idea  was  that  Daniel  was  to  be  second  Vi/ier,  the  first  Vizier 

being  called  the  'second'  after  the  king.     (Cf.   Ksther  x.  .'1.     Ilavcr- 

nick,  185;  Lengerke,  251  ;  Bertholdt,  374).  Kautxsi-li,  (Jrammatik  des 
Biblisch-Ararnaischen,  p.  121,  thought  that  it  probably  meant  after 

Nabonidus  and  the  queen-mother. 


109 

Verse  10.  Note  1.— The  queen  here  must  mean  either  the  chief 
wife  or  the  mother  of  the  kins.  It  has  been  stated,  however,  in  verses 
2  and  3  that  the  wives  of  the  king  were  already  present  and  this  fact 
and  the  tone  of  command,  which  the  author  gives  his  "queen"  in  this 
passage  seems  to  show  that  he  considered  her  not  the  wife,  but  the 
mother  of  Belshazzar.  That  the  queen-mother  was  meant  was  the 
opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  older  commentators.  Compare  Len- 
gerke,  252  ;  Kranichfeld,  221 ;  Havernick,  191  ;  Hengstenberg,  47.  318, 
etc.  Note  however  that  J.  D.  Micluelis,  Daniel,  p.  47  and  Berth oldt 
believed  that  the  wife  of  the  king  was  meant.  Josephus,  Antiquities 
x,  11.  2,  thought  that  it  was  the  king's  grandmother,  etc.,  etc. 

The  queen-dowager  was  a  powerful  and  important  personage  in 
ancient  times.  (See  I  Kings  xv.  13,  II  Chron.  xv.  16.)  As  at  present, 
she  ruled  during  the  minority  of  the  king  and  probably  always  had 
an  advisory  voice  in  the  management  of  the  government.  In  modern 
Turkey,  as  was  tin-  case  in  ancient  Egypt,  the  queen-mother  is  a 
weighty  factor  in  political  affairs.  Among  the  Hebrews  the  queen- 
dowager  ranked  after  the  king  but  before  his  wives.  (See  II  Kings 
xxiv.  15.) 

In  tin-  Assyrian  letters  the  king's  greeting  to  the  queen-mother  is 
of  the  most  respectful  character.  Thus,  in  the  letter  translated  by 
Delit/sch,  Beitrage  y.ur  Assyriologie.  i.  1ST  1S8.  we  find  'abitsarri  ana 
iiniini  sarri  -ulmii  ;Ui.  -ulniu  ana  unimi  sarri '  word  of  the  king  to  the 
queen-mother,  my  greet  in-.:,  greeting  to  the  queen  mother.' 

When  the  king  greets  a  subject  In-  uses  the  words  '  libbaka  lu  tabka 

'  make  glad  thy  heart/  but  in  the  message  to  the  queen-mother  such 
an  address  would  be  disrespectful.  In  spite  of  the  honor  accorded  by 
the  king  to  his  mother,  it  is  interesting  to  notice  that  he  never  calls 
her  'his  Lady.'  a  fact  to  which  Delit/scli  lias  called  attention  (I.e.)  as, 
indicating  the  evident  supremacy  of  the  king.  From  the  tone  of  the 
above  mentioned  letter  the  king  was  ready  to  carry  out  his  mother's 
behests,  but  her  commands  must  first  have  the  royal  sanction.  For 
other  references  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  to  the  queen-dowager, 
of.  Delit/sch.  ..p.  cit,  1S!».  1!)2. 

Note   2.  —  ^p  .        Everything    was    in    confusion,    see    verse    !>.   '- 

pC5^Dnt^O~and   ^1(1  q'l'-'-u  entered  the  hall  to  see  what  the  trouble 
was. 

Ilit/ig's  translation  (Daniel,  p.  Si)  is  correct;  '  Aus  Aiilass  der 
Keden.'  Compare  the  Greek  version,  i«i-:'ixi.rri  -^v  Myun>  rav  fJaaiMus  nal 
(te-ytordvuv  avrov.  (See  Field,  Hexapla).  Theodotion  omits  the  words 
altogether.  The  Vul-ate  has,  'proreqnac  acciderat  regi  et  optimati- 

blis  CJUS.'      LNX.    ri'iri-  i>    -'xirn/tif   i-i,n'/tn>--  ri/f  .inni'/ innav  Trrpl  rov  orj[j.t:iov. 

Note  3.— ^H  yti^yh  ND^D  i«  the  regular  salutation  to  the  king, 
as  in  chapter  ii.  4  ;  iii.  9  ;  vi.  7.  22  ;  Neh.  ii.  3  ;  I  Kings  i.  31.  This 
greeting  was  common  also  in  Babylonian  times  ;  see  Delitzsch,  Bei- 


110 

.  i.  239;  'May  Nebo  and  Merodach  give  long  days  and  everlast- 
ing years  unto  the  king  of  the  lands  my  lord,'  and  also  op.  cit.  242. 
In  this  connection  Kaulen,  Assyrian  und  Babylonien,  262,  should  be 
read. 

Verse  11.  Note  1.— Compare'  chapter  ii.  48.  It  is  not  historically 
probable  that  a  Jewish  prophet  could  have  occupied  such  a  position; 
first,  because  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  a  strict  Jew  could  conscientiously 
hold  this  post,  and  secondly,  because  the  magicians,  probably  being 
an  hereditary  order  (see  n.  1.  to  v.  7.),  would  have  resented  an  outsider 
being  set  over  them.  (See  Lenormant,  Magic,  Germ,  ed.,  chapter  6, 
563). 

Note  2.— The  repetition  of  the  words  'thy  father'  at  the  end  of  the 
verse  is  not  necessarily  an  anacolouthon  (Kautsch,  Grammatik  des 
Biblisch-Aram.,  p.  163),  but  simply  for  emphasis.  The  great  king  did 
it  himself.  The  Vulgate  has  'et  rex  N.  pater  tuus  principem  majorum 

pater  inquam  tuus.'  (I  find  that  the  well  known  commentator, 

Moses  Stuart,  sometime  Theological  Professor  at  Andover,  was  also  of 
this  opinion  ;  see  his  'Daniel,'  Boston,  1850,  on  this  verse.) 

Verse  12.  Note  1. — It  does  not  seem  to  have  been  uncommon  for 
kings  to  change  the  names  of  their  vassals.  Compare  II  Kings,  xxiv. 
17,  where  the  name  of  Mattaniah,  the  uncle  of  Jeconiah,  is  changed 
by  Nebuchadnezzar  to  Zedekiah,  and  II  Kings  xxiii.  34,  where  Necho, 
king  of  Egypt,  changed  the  name  of  Eliakim,  brother  of  Jehoahaz,  to 
Jehoiakim.  Jehoiakin,  son  of  Jehoiakim,  was  also  called  Jeconiah 
(I  Chron.  iii.  16)  and  Coniah  (Jer.  xxii.  24). 

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

Verse  13.  Note  1. — Reflectively  and  not  necessarily  a  question  with 
the  interrogative  H  dropped  to  avoid  hiatus.  (So  Kautzsch,  op.  cit.). 
If  the  translation  given  above  be  adopted,  there  is  certainly  no  contra- 
diction between  this  verse  and  the  statement  in  chapter  viii.  27,  that 
Daniel  had  already  been  in  the  service  of  Belshazzar.  The  king  docs 
not  say  'art  thou  Daniel  ?'  as  if  he  had  never  before  heard  the  name, 
(Lengerke,  Daniel,  254),  but  remarks  reflectively  '  so  thou  art  Daniel.' 
The  author  certainly  did  not  intend  to  represent  in  this  address  any 
latent  scorn  at  Daniel's  Jewish  origin,  according  to  Calvin's  strange 
idea  (followed  by  Havernick,  Dan.,  194). 

Note  2. — The  relative  pronoun  refers  to  the  exiles  and  not  to  Daniel 
directly  as  the  Vulgate  has  it.  Theodotion  lias  correctly  />;  i/wev. 

Verse  15.  Note  1. — Simple  asyndeton,  cf.  chapter  i.  20;  ii.  27.45. 
The  Syriac  version  inserts  the  copula.  Havernick,  Dan.  194,  and  I>er- 
tholdt,  Dan.  380,  following  Theodotion,  supposed  that  the  other  classes 
of  magicians  had  been  omitted.  Theodotion  has* -<></''"  .M</;,<>/,  I' 


Ill 

Verse  17.  Note  1. — Daniel's  refusal  to  accept  the  promised  reward 
sign  of  his  religious  exclusiveness.  He  is  unwilling  to  take  gifts 
for  using  the  power  which  God  has  given  him.  As  to  his  final  accept- 
ance of  the  offer,  see  note  to  v.  2!>. 

Xote  2. — The  author  gives  the  prophet  time  to  examine  and  read  the 
writing  during  the  speech  of  the  king.  Compare  the  LKX.:  TOTE 

Arm///  tar-i/  Karhmrri  rf/q  ypafyi/s  K</'/  tin'-,  i't,i  Kd'i  n'r7(.>c  aireKpi&Jf^  etc. 

Verse  18.  Note  1.— '0  Kin-'  really  'Thou  0  King '—a  nomina- 
tive absolute  as  in  chapter  ii.  21). 

Note  2. — Notice  the  contrast  BO  strongly  emphasized  in  these  verses 
18-20,  between  the  great  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  his  insignificant  sue 
cessor.  The  point  is.  that  ii'  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  great  king,  suffered 
such  punishment  for  his  pride  from  tin-  Most  lliuli.  how  much  more 
then  Belshazzar  who  has  deliberately  insulted  the  (lod  of  the  Heavens 
by  the  profane  use  of  His  sacred  vessels. 

Verse  21.  Note  1-  The  usual  translation  is  'wild  asses.'  Theodo- 
tion  has  ~';"'  bvdypuv,  translating  the  Aramaean  word  X1HJ7. 

It  seems  preferable  however  to  read  here  X'")"TJ7    herds,  a  sir. 

tiou  which  was  advanced  by  I 'rot',  llaiipt  in  his  lectures  and  which  is 
mentioned  by  •).  D.  Michadis.  l>aniel.  p.  .">!.  as  being  the  reading  of  an 
old  codex.  The  reading  'wild  asses"  certainly  makes  no  sense,  as  no 
mortal  man  could  take  up  his  abode  with  these  swiftest  denizens  of  the 
desert. 

Note  2.  For  this  legend  regarding  Nebuchadnezzar  see  Daniel  iv. 
25-34.  Kiiscbins  gives  an  account  which  bears  some  slight  resein 
blance  to  the  Biblical  story.  Kusebius  took  his  version  of  the  tale 
from  the  writings  of  Abyd'-mis  \vho  mentioned  Me-a-thenes  as  his 
source.  The  latter  was  said  to  have  had  the  account  direct  from  the 
rhahheans.  According  to  this  version.  Nebuchadnezzar  prophesies 
the  downfall  of  Babylon  and  invoke.-  on  his  enemies  the  very  fate 
which  according  to  the  book  of  Daniel  he  suffered  himself.  Compare 
Kusebius.  Kvanir.  I'raeparatiouis  Liber  It.  41.  (i.  ed.  < iaisford.  and  the 
shorter  account  of  the  same  in  the  ( 'hroniconini  Libri  duo,  Schone  I. 
41,  42,  cited  Selirader.  .Jahrbuch  fur  Protestantische  Tlieologie,  vii.  628 

'  Wahnsiim  Nebuchadnezzar 's.' 

The  theory  of  v.  Lengerke.  Dan.  151  and  Ilit/ig.  Dan.  57,  seems 
hardly  tenable,  that  the  account  of  Abydenus  was  a  later  fabrication, 
taken  partly  from  the  prophecies  in  chapters  ii.  iv,  and  partly  from 
the  story  of  the  lycanthropy.  chapter  iv.  and  chapter  v.  The  diame- 
trically opposed  character  of  the  two  accounts  appears  to  preclude,  such 
a  supposition.  In  the  IJible  the  curse  falls  on  Nebuchadnezzar,  while 
in  the  secular  version  the  king  invokes  it  on  his  enemies.  The  con- 
nection between  the  two  seems  to  lie  in  the  fact  that  in  both  accounts 
it  is  a  tale  about  Nebuchadnezzar  and  a  curse.  If,  as  Schrader  thought, 
the  two  accounts  are  independent  developments  of  one  and  the  same 
Babylonian  legend,  one  version  has  been  sadlv  distorted. 


112 

Some  have  sought  to  find  confirmation  for  the  biblical  account  in  the 
statement  of  Joseph  us,  c.  AI>.  I.  20,  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  kfineauv  i/r 
(iwi.MjTiav,  departed  this  life,  their  idea  being,  that  unless  the  illness 
had  been  something  peculiarly  remarkable,  such  as  the  biblical  '  in- 
sania  zoanthropica,'  it  would  not  have  been  mentioned!?).  It  appears 
impossible,  however,  with  our  present  data  to  make  any  definite  state- 
ment with  regard  to  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  biblical  account  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  lycanthropy. 

Verse  23.  Note  1. — Compare  Psalm  cxxxv.  16,  17.  'They  have 
mouths  but  they  speak  not,  eyes  have  they,  but  they  see  not.  They 
have  ears  but  they  hear  not,  neither  is  there  any  breath  in  their 
mouths.'  Also  Psalm  cxv.  4  ff. 

Note  2.-Cf.  Jeremiah  x.  23,  13T]  D"]^'?  N^  • 

'Verse  24.  Note  1.  — Theodotion  rfm  mlro  and  Vulgate  '  idoirco '  are 
not  quite  exact.  It  is  'then'  not  'therefore.'  (Of.  the  more  suitable 
Syriac  'ha-vden.' 

Verse  25. — Note  1. — The  mina  alludes  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  shekel, 
one  sixtieth  as  valuable,  points  to  the  insignificant  Belshazzar,  while 
the  two  half-minas  refer  to  the  double  nation  the  Medes  and  Persians. 
who  are  to  destroy  the  power  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  See  above,  chapter 
first,  for  full  discussion.  Both  the  Greek  and  Latin  versions  in  the 
reproduction  of  the  mysterious  sentence  in  v.  25  read  only  the  three 
words  'mane,'  'thekel,'  'peres,'  omitting  one  JO£  ,  and  disregarding 
both  the  conjunction  ^  and  the  plural  form  of  DID  •  This  reading 
may  have  been  due  to  the  influence  of  vs.  26,  27,  28  where  only  a  single 
frOP  j  and  the  singular  form  D""]B  aro  mentioned  with  ^pri  ?  as 
strictly  necessary  to  the  interpretation.  The  Syriac  version  alone  has 
kept  the  received  text,  '  mane  mcna  th'qel  wc  pharsin.' 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  one  version  of  the  LXX.  in  disagree- 
ment in  this  point  with  the  version  of  Theodotion,  has  transferred  the 
words  to  v.  5  (q.  v.)  and  changes  their  order,  reading  Mac//,  *a/oef,  » 
It  seems  possible  that  the  copyist  of  the  original  manuscript,  from 
which  this  translation  was  made,  understood  the  real  meaning  of  the 
words  as  names  of  weights  and  without  seeing  their  special  application 
to  this  passage,  felt  the  necessity  of  a  regularly  decreasing  enumera- 
tion. (Cf.  in  this  connection  Hebraica  iii.  No.  2,  3(1.  note  1.  (Ganncau)). 
The  LXX.,  however,  translates  the  three  words  by  jjpi&tJieTai,  ^i/p-at, 
rn-dTui;  'numbered,  taken  away,  weighed/ 

Verse  28.  Ancient  history  establishes  the  closest  connection  be- 
tween the  Medes  and  Persians.  (For  the  history  of  the  Medes  proper 
see  above,  ch.  ii.)  The  Greeks  frequently  applied  the  common  term 
Medes  indifferently  to  either  nation.  Thus,  the  conflicts  with  Darius 
and  his  successors  were  called  either  ra  AI//A/AU  or  ru  ll.^rr//,,/,  while 
the  Persian  Great  King  who  ruled  in  Snsa  was  addressed  as  tlic  '  King 
of  the  Medes.'  (Cf.  in  connection  with  this.  Kawlinson,  rive  (Jreal 
Monarchies,  2.  300,  note  1.  and  Delattre,  Medcs,  p.  .">.)  The  Jews  also 


113 

as  is  well  known,  regarded  the  Modes  and  Persians  as  two  peoples 
closely  allied  in  law  and  customs.  (Cf.  Dan.  vi.  8.  12.  15;  viii.  20; 
Esther  i.  3— reference  to  the  power  of  Persia  and  Media  ;  i.  14 — Princes 
of  Persia  and  Media  (see  also  i.  18);  x.  2 — allusion  to  the  book  of  the 
chronicles  of  Media  and  Persia.)  Previous  to  the  discovery  of  the 
cuneiform  inscriptions,  no  one  thought  of  doubting  that  the  Medes  as 
well  as  the  Persians  belonged  to  the  Aryan  race.  Herodotus,  7.  62, 
remarked  /M///OITO  ~a/Mi  -put;  -ui-ri.n'  '\fHoi,  and  adds  that  whenMedea  of 
Colchis  came  to  them  from  Athens  they  changed  their  name  to  Medes. 
It  is  also  especially  stated  by  Strain >  xv.  2.  8,  that  both  Medes  and  Per- 
sians used  practically  the  same  language,  (eiri  yap  ~(.x;  KO.I  u^y"KorroL 
-apd  fiiKfiuv.}  We  may  compare  Bawlinson,  1.  c.,  and  also  Strabo,  xv.  11. 
14,  where  the  same  ass. -rtion  is  ascribed  to  Ncarkos,  one  of  the  officers  of 
Alexander.  (See  for  further  examples  Weisbach,  Achameniden  In- 
schriften  /writer  Art.,  p.  21.) 

Of  late  year-,  however,  serious  doubt  has  been  cast  on  the  Aryan 
origin  of  the  Medes  by  a  number  of  scholars.  Because  in  the  trilingual 
inscription*  of  the  Achaemeniaii  kings,  between  the  original  Persian 
and  the  Babylonian  translation,  another  idiom  appears,  taking  prece- 
dence over  the  BabyloniaDt  certain  scholars  have  believed  this  to  be 
the  language  of  Media.  (So  Oppert,  Medes.  p.  2.  For  a  synopsis  and 
discus-ion  of  the  various  opinions  on  this  subject  see  Delattre,  op.  cit., 
pp.  7fF.  and  p.  1(1.)  This  dialect  of  the  second  sort  which  was  given 
such  a  prominent  place  in  the  royal  inscriptions  must  be,  it  was  thought, 
the  idiom  of  the  most  important  subject  people  of  the  Persian  Umpire, 
the  Babylonian  being  necessarily  excluded.  They  decided  accordingly 
that  it  could  only  be  the  lan-ua-e  of  the  Medes.  Then,  when  an  exam- 
ination brought  to  li-ht  that  it  was  neither  a  Semitic  nor  an  Aryan 
idiom,  they  concluded  that  the  Medes  must  have  been  a  -i  Turanian  " 
people.  The  principle  on  which  such  a  supposition  rested  is,  that  the 

choice  and  disposition  of  language  in  the  A.chaemenian  texts  depended 
on  the  relative  importance  of  the  peoples  who  made  up  the  Persian 
Km  |  »ire. 

Although  it  would  certainly  be  natural  that  the  Persian  kings 
should  in  their  trilingual  documents  give  the  idiom  of  the  most  impor- 
tant subject  state  the  precedence,  it  still  does  not  necessarily  follow 
that  the  second  language  in  these  .inscriptions  is  that  of  Media.  It 
cannot  of  course  be  denied  that  the  Medes  enjoyed  a  special  promi- 
nence in  the  empire.  The  place  which  they  occupied  in  the  inscrip- 
tions next  to  the  Persians,  and  the  fact  that  Medes  are  found  in  the 
most  important  and  responsible  positions  seem  to  point  to  such  a  con- 
clusion. (Cf.  Herodotus,  I.  156-157,  Mazares,  a  Mede,  quelled  the 
revolt  of  Sardis  against  Cyrus. — I.  162-176,  Harpagus,  a  Mede,  carried 
on  the  war:  cf.  also  Delattre,  op.  cit.  p.  17,  note  3).  Part  of  their 
powerful  influence  may  have  been  due  to  the  sacerdotal  caste  of  the 
Magi  who  were  probably  originally  of  Median  origin.  (So  Delattre,  p. 
15 


lU 

17  and  p.  55).  The  very  fact  that  the  name  Mede  survived  so  long  as 
almost  a  synonym  for  Persian,  certainly  seems  to  show  that  the  indi- 
viduality of  the  older  people  was  extremely  prominent  throughout  a 
long  period  of  the  Persian  history.  Delattre's  remark  (op.  cit.  p.  18) 
that  these  considerations  are  somewhat  weakened  by  the  statement  of 
the  Annals  2.  1-4  that  Cyrus  plundered  Ecbatana  the  Median  capital, 
like  an  enemy's  city,  has  no  special  force.  Because  the  Medes  by 
their  superior  civilization  eventually  exercised  a  strong  influence  on 
the  Persian  people,  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  Cyrus,  probably 
the  first  Persian  who  came  into  close  contact  with  Median  culture, 
established  directly  such  friendly  relations  with  the  conquered  people 
as  to  abstain  from  plundering  their  capital,  which  had  fallen  to  him 
by  right  of  war. 

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

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

It  is  contrary  to  the  consensus  of  the  ancient  authors,  as  shown 
above,  to  regard  the  Medes  as  anything  but  Aryans  and  closely  allied 
to  the  Persians.  The  statement  of  Strabo  that  both  Medes  and  Per- 
sians used  nearly  the  same  language  is  confirmed  by  an  examination  of 
the  extant  Median  proper  names,  nearly  all  of  which  are  of  marked 
Aryan  character.  We  may  compare  Rawlinson,  Herodotus  3.  444-455 
(2d  ed.)  and  the  remarks  of  Eduard  Meyer  on  the  list  of  names  of  the 
Median  chiefs  of  Sargon's  time  given  in  Delitzsch,  Kossaeans,  p.  48. — 
See  also  Literaturblatt  fur  Orientalische  Philologie  (Ernst  Kuhn),  ii. 
p.  51.  From  the  nature  of  these  names  Meyer  concludes  quite  rightly 
that  the  rulers  of  Media  at  the  end  of  the  eighth  century  B.  C.  were  of 
Aryan  race.  (See  also  Weisbach,  op.  cit.,  p.  19.) 

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

A.  All  Medes  spoke  Aryrfn. 

B.  All  Medes  spoke  an  Afyan-Turanian  mixed  language. 

C.  All  Medes  spoke  Turanian. 

D.  The  Aryan  Medes  spoke  Aryan,  the  "Turanians  "  spoke  "  Turan- 
ian. 


115 

In  answer  to  the  first  two  suppositions,  it  may  be  stated,  that  the 
language  of  the  inscriptions  of  the  second  sort  is  clearly  neither  Aryan 
nor  a  mixed  idiom,  for  example,  like  modern  Turkish,  while  the  theory 
that  all  Medes  spoke  "Turanian  "  is  made  untenable  by  the  statements, 
referred  to  above,  of  the  ancient  authors  who  evidently  regarded  the 
Median  language  as  Aryan.  The  fact,  too,  that  the  Medes  played  such 
an  important  part  in  Persian  history,  and  were  for  such  a  long  time  so 
closely  and  prominently  connected  with  the  latter  people,  could  hardly 
have  been  the  case  had  they  been  a  totally  distinct  "Turanian''  nice. 
In  the  latter  instance,  while  considerable  influence  might  have  been  exer- 
cised by  an  entirely  alien  people,  such  a  complete  association  and  iden- 
tification of  intcrots  as  appear  between  the  Medes  and  Persians  could 
hardly  have  been  expected.  The  tie  of  a  common  language  must  have 
been  present  to  establish  such  a  close  union.  As  to  the  last  idea,  that 
part  of  the  Medes  spoke  Aryan  and  part  ''Turanian,1'  even  if  this  were 
so.  we  would  have  no  right  to  call  the  language  of  the  "Turanian'1 
Modes,  "Median,"  as  this  term  was  applied  by  custom  to  an  Aryan 
speech.  To  do  so,  would  he  start  a  confusion  of  names  similar  to  that 
suggested  by  \Veisbach  (p.  ±J).  He  asserts  quite  rightly,  that  to  call  a 
"Turanian"  language  ".Median"  would  be  an  error  like  calling  the 
language  of  the  <  Jermans  resident  in  Bohemia.  "  Bohemian."  a  term 
which  is  only  applied  to  the  idiom  of  the  (V.echs  :  the  true  Bohemians. 
In  addition  to  this,  however,  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  the 
language  of  the  Aehaeuieniaii  inscriptions  of  the  second  sort  is  that 
of  -Turanian  "  Medes  at  all. 

If,  as  seem-  necessary,  the  Medes  must  be  regarded  as  entirely 
Aryans,  to  what  people  then  are  the  non-Aryan  non-Semitic  Achae- 
menian  inscriptions  of  the  second  sort  to  be  ascribed?  Here  M. 
Delattre  -eeins  to  have  found  the  key  to  the  solution  of  the  problem. 

He  advances  the  theory  that,  because  according  to  ( )ppert  and  Sayce 
the  so-called  "Median"  of  the  Achaeinenian  inscriptions  has  affinity 
with  the  FJamitic  or  Stt-ian  language,  the  people  who  used  the  doubt- 
ful idiom  of  the  Persian  documents  were  of  Klainitic  race.  As  a  num- 
ber of  Persian  loan-words  (see  Lenormant  Lett  res  Assyr.,  t.  1.  18-19, 
Delattre,  op.  cit.  43)  are  found  in  the  A.chaemenian  dialect,  he  further 
concluded  that  the  people  who  spoke  it  must  have  been  for  some;  time 
closely  connected  with  Persian  influences.  The  fulfillment  of  both 
these  conditions  he  timls  in  the  natives  of  Ansan,  the  hereditary  state 
of  (1yrus  ;  i.  e.  he  believes  that  the  second  Achaeinenian  language  was 
the  Elamitic  dialect  of  An-an.  a  theory  which  certainly  deserves  con- 
-Meration,  in  that  the  language  of  Ansan,  as  the  vernacular  of  the 
nucleus  of  the  Persian  empire,  might  have  ranked  directly  after  Persian 
and  taken  the  precedence  of  Babylonian.  (For  Ansan  and  its  older 
language  see  Weisbach,  Die  Anzanischen  Inschriften,  1891). 

A.8  our  knowledge  of  the  language  of  Old  Elam,  however,  does  not 
yet  permit  a  translation  of  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  in  that  tongue,  it 


11(5 

seems  impossible  at  present  to  make  any  definite'  statement  concerning 
Elamitic  dialects.  Then,  too,  the  fact  that  the  Achaemenian  second  lan- 
guage and  the  Elamitic  are  quite  distinct  though  evidently  allied  lan- 
guages heightens  the  difficulty.  In  this  connection,  however,  the  great 
difference  in  time  between  the  Achaemenian  inscriptions  of  the  second 
sort  and  the  ancient  documents  of  Susiana  orElam  must  not  be  forgotten. 
Sayce  has  found  that  the  inscriptions  of  Old  Elam  are  to  be  divided 
into  two  groups — the  one  written  in  characters  closely  allied  to  the 
Old  Babylonian,  while  the  second  kind,  the  inscriptions  of  Mai- Amir 
present  a  later  form  which  is  closely  akin  to  that  of  the  Achaemenian 
records  of  the  second  sort.  According  to  Weisbach  (Acham.  Inschr. 
zweiter  Art.,  p.  24),  it  is  possible  to  demonstrate  by  a  number  of  exam- 
ples that  this  form  of  the  Achaemenian  inscriptions,  originally  derived 
from  the  Babylonian  characters,  is  a  later  development  from  the  form 
found  on  the  monuments  of  Mai-Amir.  Weisbach  refers  in  this  con- 
nection to  the  list  of  characters  given  by  Sayce  in  the  Transactions  of 
the  Sixth  International  Oriental  Congress. 

All  that  can  be  asserted  at  present  seems  to  be  that  the  three  great 
languages  of  the  Persian  empire  were  Persian,  the  idiom  of  the  second 
sort,  and  Babylonian.  The  second  language  may  be  a  later  form  of  the 
old  Elamitic  or  Susian,  containing  a  number  of  Aryan  loan-words  ob- 
tained through  long  intercourse  with  Aryan  races  ;  i.  e.  the  Medes  and 
Persians.  This  is  practically  the  opinion  of  Weisbach  (op.  cit.  24)  who 
calls  the  doubtful  Achaemenian  dialect  "New  Susian"  and  remarks  that 
this  idea  agrees  excellently  with  the  order  in  which  we  find  the  three 
idioms  in  the  documents  of  the  Persian  Kings, — first,  language  of 
Persia ;  second,  that  of  Susa  or  Elam,  and  third,  that  of  Babylonia. 
As  soon  as  it  appears  evident  that  the  Achaemenian  inscriptions  of  the 
second  sort  need  not  necessarily  be  in  the  language  of  the  Medes,  the 
Aryan  race  of  the  latter,  in  view  of  the  reasons  mentioned  above,  should 
not  be  called  in  question. 

In  the  twenty-eighth  verse  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  Daniel  the  parono- 
masia on  '  Persian '  may  perhaps  indicate  that  the  author  was  not  un- 
aware of  the  dominant  position  of  that  people.  The  idea  advanced  by 
v.  Lengerke  that  he  used  a  play  of  words  on  Persian,  because  he  could 
not  pun  on  the  word  Mede,  is  untenable,  because  a  derivative  of  the 
stem  *]"10  »  to  measure,  such  as  Hip  would  have  answered  the  pur- 
pose admirably  (see  Kranichfeld,  Daniel,  227).  With  regard  to  the 
question  of  the  precedence  accorded  by  the  biblical  writer  to  the  older 
people,  it  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  earlier  references  use  the 
term  Medes  for  both  nations.  Thus,  in  Isaiah  xiii.  17,  in  prophesying 
the  doom  of  Babylon  it  is  stated,  'behold  1  will  stir  up  the  Medes 
against  them,' etc.,  and  in  Jeremiah  li.  11,  referring  to  the  same  subject, 
'the  Lord  hath  raised  up  the  spirit  of  the  kings  of  the  .Medes.' 
Throughout  the  entire  book  of  Daniel,  wherever  both  nations  are  men- 
tioned, the  Medes  have  the  first  place,  while  in  the  book  of  Kstlter. 


117 

Persia  is  put  before  Media,  except  in  chapter  x.  '1,  where  an  allusion  is 
made  to  the  book  of  the  chronicles  of  Media  and  Persia,— perhaps  an 
old  record. 

The  explanation  of  the  gradual  decadence  of  the  Median  name  seems 
to  lie.  that  as  the  Medes  in  the  course  of  time  amalgamated  and  became 
practically  identical  with  their  Persian  kinsmen,  the  name  Persian 
came  to  be  used  in  place  of  Mede.  In  fact  the  latter  name  seems  to 
have  completely  disappeared  under  the  Sassanidae  (see  Delattre,  op. 
cit.  :•>!).  It  was  perfectly  natural  that  two  closely  allied  peoples  speak- 
in. ir  practically  the  same  lan;rua.irc  and  probably  intermixing,  should 
end  by  becoming  one.  and  that  the  name  of  the  dominant  race  should 
prevail. 

Verse  -!>.  Note  1.— It  is  not  clear  from  the  text  of  this  verse 
whether  the  author  meant  to  convey  that  the  promised  honors  were 
really  conferred  on  Daniel  or  not,  nor  is  the  question  of  sufficient  im- 
portance to  merit  the  discussion  given  to  it  by  some  commentators. 
(('('.  Havel-nick.  Dan.  21)1,  V.  Lenirerkc.  '241.  211").  etc.)  It  is  possible 
to  translate,  '  P>elsha//ar  gave  orders  and  they  clothed  Daniel,  etc.,' 
\vhichwould  mean  that  the  reward  wa>  conferred  immediately,  <>r,  '  Bel- 
sha/x.ar  gave  «»rder>  to  clothe  Daniel.'  which  does  not  necessarily  imply 
that  the  commands  were  carried  out,  but  that  the  death  of  the  king 
may  have  prevented  the  fulfillment  of  the  promise.  In  view  of  the 
frequent  e<>-< irdi nat ion  of  sentences  in  cases  where  the  subordinate 
character  of  one  clause  is  apparent,  the  latter  translation  seems  prefer- 
able. (See  Kauty.sch.  ( Iraminatik  des  Uiblisch-Aramaisehen,  $  102.) 
The  idea  that  the  rewards  were  conferred  directly  was  held  by  Jerome, 
who  remarked:  '  non  inirum  -i  1>.  aiidiens  tristia  solvent  praemiiim 
(plod  pollicitus  est.  Ant  eiiim  l<»nin>  p.»t  tenipore  eredidit  ventura  <|uae 
dixerit,  aut.  duni  Dei  prophetani  liiunirat.  sperat  Be  veiiiam  consecutu- 
run.:  «'f.  also  Zockler.  Daniel.  ll!U 

ADIUTIONAL    I.IMillSTIc    \nTKS    T< »    l>. \.MKL    V. 

Verse  1.  a)  IJelsha/y.ar  =  Babylonian,  IJel-sar-ueiir.  '  IJel  preserve 
the  Kin,-.'  Compare  among  others,  Schrader,  Die  Keilinschriftcn  und 
das  Alte  Testament,' ed.  2,  p.  -I.' I.' I.  and  Fried.  Delit/sch,  in  l>acr  and 
Delitxsch,  Daniel.  K/ra  and  Xeh.  praef..  p.  x.  Similar  names  are  Mar- 
duk-sar-iuMir.  Nergal-iar-u^ur,  Sin-Sar-u^ur,  etc.  (for  the  latter,  sec 
Ztschr.  f'iir  Assyriolode,  ii.  p.  101). 

I'revious  to  the  discovery  of  the  name  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions, 
most  commentators  identified  it  with  IJelteslia/xar,  an  error  which  dates 
from  ancient  times,  as  the  (ireek  translators  of  the  Old  Testament  evi- 
dently regarded  the  two  names  as  the  same,  representing  both  by  the 
form  I'td/Tumtf). 

•  I.  D.  Michaelis  defended  the  readinu  "IVt^N^D  (found  Daniel  vii. 
1  and  viii.  1).  llit/ii;-  reirarded  this  form  as  evidence  that  the  l  $# ' 
was  an  abbreviation  of  the  relative  '*1C^K-'  Among  the  Jewish 


118 

authorities  Sa'adia  derived  the  name  from  fc^HJ — to  search  and 
because  the  king  had  to  search  for  the  vessels  in  the  *)^1K  ! 

For  various  obsolete  opinions  as  to  the  derivation  of  the  name  see 
Havel-nick,  p.  172 ;  v.  Lengerke,  p.  242  :  Kranichfeld,  p.  65,  etc.,  etc. 

The  name  Sheshbazzar,  of  the  Persian  Commissioner,  or,  according 
to  some,  of  Zerubbabel,  found  in  Ezra  i.  8,  may  be  a  formation  like  Bel- 
sar-ucur.  A  number  of  variants  of  the  name  Sheshbazzar  occur  in  the 
Greek  versions,  i.  e.  in  the  translation  of  Ezra.  'Zaaaajaaaap,  l^/  mnr/^/yr, 
^ln'a,.-',(/(7(7<i./)J  Sova/foffcrappf ;  in  first  Esdras  ;  ^ivt/.^aanap  Za/mvavaaf) .  and  in 
Josephus  'A^aaaa/).  The  ending — a<rcr«/j,  common  to  all,  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  it  is  a  name  ending  in  -uQur.  (In  the  form  Zajlaaufw, 
— the  -m  is  clearly  the  Greek  termination).  Sheshbazzar  may  be 
regarded  therefore,  either  as  a  corruption  of  Samas-sum-UQur,  'tSanias 
protect  the  name,'  or,  as  Cheyne  has  suggested,  for  Samas-pal-uyur, 
'  Samas  protect  the  son '  (see  Academy,  No.  1031,  p.  138,  commenting  on 
Van  Hoonacker's  idea  that  it  is  for  Samas-bil-ucur,  l  Samas  protect  the 
Lord  '—in  Academy,  No.  1030,  p.  114). 

I  am  inclined  to  favor  Cheyne's  ingenious  interpretation,  as  it  would 
not  only  be  perfectly  possible  for  the  I  of  '  pal '  to  disappear  before  the 
following  sibilant,  but  the  name  would  be  more  in  conformity  with 
Babylonian  usage,  than  any  of  the  other  suggestions. 

b)  Drf?  "Oy  .cf.  nnttfO  ntPy  Eccles.  x.  19  ;  Gen.  xxi.  8. 

c)  p}*"O*") :  really  a  double  plural;  i.  c.  with  reduplication  and  the 
ending  -an.     The  word  is  common  in  the  Targums,  where  it  occurs  in 
the  forms,   fcOTOT    aWTOn    and    frOmD  .     For   examples,  see 

T  T     :    r    ~~  TT::  TT: 

Levy,  Chaldaeisches  Worterbuch,  and  cf.  Syriac,  rawrvane,  rawrvaiuiy, 
etc.,  Noldeke,  Syriac  Grammar,  $  146.  For  a  list  of  nouns  in  Syriac 
forming  their  plural  in  -an,  see  op.  cit.  §  74.  As  Noldeke  remarked 
(Gott.  Gel.  Anz.,  1884,  p.  1020),  Kautzsch  might,  in  his  Grammatik  des 
Biblisch-Arani.,  p.  110  and  114,  have  stated  a  little  more  explicitly  that 
the  double  formations  pD""O1  »  fMO*"O'""') ,  etc.,  cannot  occur  in  the 
singular,  any  more  than  the  simple  form  3*) ,  JO1  can  form  a  plural, 
(with  the  exception  of  course,  of  a  few  special  cases). 

d)  ^Dp1?  =  before,  in  front  of,  from  ^Dp »  receive,  Arabic   J*o* . 
An  exactly  equivalent  expression  is  the  Assyrian  '  ina  maxru  '  ~  before, 
in  the  presence  of,  from  '  niaxaru,'  to  be  in  front  of,  go  to  meet ;  then,  to 
meet  as  an  enemy;  hence  'tamxaru,'  battle,  and  'maxiru,'  rival.    'Max 
aru'  means  also,  to  hasten;  hence  l  mitxaris,'  swiftly.     See  ])elit/sdi, 
Assyrische  Studien,  pp.  124-125,  for  the  development  of  these  words. 

Verse  2.  a)  fcOftfl  DJ/COD — '  at  the  command  of  the  wine,'  not, 
4  when  the  wine  began  to  taste  '  as  is  usually  translated.  See  Haver 
nick,  Dan.  174;  Kranichfeld,  Dan.  214;  Ilit/ig,  Dan.  7!>,  etc.  Hotli 
K.  Salomo  and  Ibn  Ezra  understood  this  passage  correctly,  translating 
1  at  the  bidding  of  the  wine,'  cf.  1  la\  erniek,  Dan.  175.  The  LXX.  has 
'~Evv\l)OV/it'voc  ('nrb  TOV  nlvov.  Theodotioil,  •'"''  ~ (I  }!i'r>:/  roi>  n'iror.  X'ulgate, 
jam  temulentns. 


119 

Aram.  Dj^lD  and  Assyrian  '  temu '  mean  both  'understanding*  and 
'command.'  For  the  former  meaning  for  D^CO  ,  see  Dun.  ii.  3 ;  Dlt^' 
D.J7lp  'to  consider;'  also  Dan.  iii.  12;  iv.  14.  For  the  signification 
'command;'  see  Ezra  iv.  S,  !),  17.  DJ^CD  *7J73~'  commander ;'  also 
Dan.  iii.  10,  etc. 

Assyrian  '  temu  '  occurs  in  the  meaning  'understanding,'  IR.  SamSi- 
raimiian  ;  IT.  IS,  where  we  find  anielu  tema.  'a  man  of  understanding  ;' 

I  V  1{.  7)7  :   col.  III.  33,  usanna  tenki.  T  wiH  change  thy  understanding  ; 
i.  e.  '  make  thee  mad.'  and   Ash.  r.  S.  (J.  teiisii  uiannima,  'he  smote  him 
with  insanity.'     For  this  translation  and  the  form   '  tensu  '  for  'temsu,' 
see  llaupt.  Wateh-Ben-Hazael,  Hebraica,  i.,  pp.  219-220.  "temu'  means 
'command,  demand:    IV  I!.  ."H.   n.  \.'2  etlu  ina   temisu  "the  husband 
with    his    demand:'    1    H.    NJ;  col.  Ill  ."V7.  ki  to*i  ramanisu,  'of  his  own 
accord.' 

h)  \3fcO1?  •  For  tn<>  Aramaean  and  later  Hebrew  use  of  ^  ,  to  denote 
the  Accusative  ( Kaiit/.sch..  p.  127).  the  exactly  equivalent  usage  of 
'  ana  '  =  to.  1'nr.  in  later  Assyrian  may  he  compared.  For  full  references 
see  .Be/old.  Achaineniileii  I  iischrifteii.  p.  4!>.  n.  3. 

c)  *7Jlt^ '•  '  the  legitimate  wife."     see  l'<.  xlv.  1(1.  used  in  Xeh.  ii.  6,  of 

the  i|iicen.     According  to  Bar  AH  (of.  I'ayne  Smith.  Thesaurus,  p.  542, 

top.  under  helathi.  Venus)  the  >tar  Veims  was  called  hy  the  Babylonians 

wadilbat.     ^JIC*  ^':ls  evidently  a    synonym,  therefore,   of  belathi, 

heltu.  Lady,  a  name  of  I  star. 

Hesychius  also  ui\c<the  form  A'/.;o"7-  '  i-  <••  Dilbat),  as  the  Babylonian 
name  of  Utar- Venus  as  the  mnrning  star.  (See  Lehmann.  Samassiimu- 
kin,  p.  125  )  Dilhat  seem-  to  mean  '  the  announcer,'  i.  e.  of  morning  or 
evening.  Sec  II  11.  7.  .'17.  R.  h.  :  dilhat  =  nabu,  'to  tell,  announce.'  In 

II  R.  48.  51,  the  star  Dilbal  is  mentinned  in  the  same  paragraph  with 
Sin  (the  moon)   and    Sama-    (the  sun).      For  the  goddess    Istar  in   her 
double  capacity  of  niornin-   and    evening   star,    see    I  )elit/sch-M  itrdter. 

Yidite.  p.  2!».  and  tor  the  name  of  the  place  Dilhat  cf.  Delit/sch, 
Wo  lag  das  Paradies.  p.  1 1!>. 

Verse  5.  a)  Ip^J — Vulgate,  'appai-nermit.'  The  <|'re  HpD^  is  un- 
necessary, nor  is  there  any  need  of  reading  jp&3  f^'1"-  I'^-i  according  to 
an  old  codex.  (US.  K.cf.  Bertholdt.  Daniel.  I'.IJS.  n.  5).  The  Semitic 
construction  does  not  require  that  the  verb  and  suhj(!ct  should  agree. 
As  to  the  possible  survival  of  a  feminine  pi.  in  Hebrew,  see  .] .  I*.  I'eters, 
Hebraica.  iii..  no.  2.  111.  That  "  and  <i  were  respectively  the  masculine 
and  feminine  third  person  pi.  endings  of  the  perfect  is  quite  probable, 
if  the  existence  of  a  perfect  in  primitive  Semitic  be  granted.  More 
than  this  it  is  very  difficult  to  assert.  We  may  compare  in  this  connec- 
tion the  remarks  of  Dr.  Cyrus  Adler,  Hebraica,  iii.,  n.  4,  268. 

b)  NJ"W"OJ  -  "~"-  teytftevov.  Derivation  uncertain.  Syriac  ncv- 
rasta— flame,  lantern,  from  which  the  Denominative  ethnevras. 
illuminate  ;  Arabic,  nibras.  The  .Jerusalem  Oemara  translates  it  by 


120 


using  the  Greek  word.  According  to  Ibn  Ezra, 
is  the  synonym  of  HI  1^0  i  used  of  the  great  branching  candlestick  of 
the  Tabernacle.  (SeeTBuxtorf,  Lexicon,  col.  1290  and  Exod.  xxv.  31  ff.; 
I  Kings  vii.  49,  etc.)  The  Targum  to  Zephaniah  i.  12,  translates  *"0  by 


In  this  passage  of  Daniel  v.  the  Syriac  version  has  seraga.  Vulgate. 
contra  candelabrum.  Theodotion,  Karevav-i  r?~/r  Aa^Tracfo?.  Vers.  Mass. 

Evtituov  TOV  /la//7r^/)of,  and  in  the  LXX.  KartvavTi  TOV  (j)ur6r. 

All  authorities  seem  agreed  that  the  word  is  of  foreign  origin.  Cf. 
Bickell,  Ephr.  Carm.  Nisib.  53,  where  a  derivation  from  the  Sanskrit 
ni  -|-  bhrag,  illuminate,  is  suggested.  This  is  as  unsatisfactory  as  the 
attempt  of  Bernstein  (Lexicon)  to  derive  it  from  *O3  ,  shine,  and 
Kfi&^'N  ,  fire,  or  that  of  «Sa'adia  from  NfitJ^^O"1^—  light  that  shines 
through  all  the  year.  See  Buxtorf,  Lex.  col.  1290. 

A  Persian  derivation  (Frankel,  Fremdwb'rter,  p.  96)  is  hardly  admissi- 
ble, because  the  original  Persian  word  has  yet  to  be  found.  (See  also 
Guidi,  Osservazione,  p.  3.)  That  the  Arabic  form  '  nibras  '  belongs  to  the 
older  language  is  seen  from  Nab.  27.  21  ;  Jakut.  iv.  737.  7.  No  satis- 
factory etymology  seems  possible  at  present. 

c)  fcOU  —  '  plaster,  lime  '  ;  cf.  Buxtorf,  Lexicon,  col.  425,  for  the  Rab- 
binical definition.      TTO'ftn   PP^p    f'O   *VJ1  ,    species  terra  deni- 
grantis.     The  word  is  probably  cognate  with   Assyrian,  qiru,  'pitch, 
mortar.'     (Cf.  Haupt,  Nimrod  Epos,  137,  1.  66,—  (the  Deluge—)  attabak 
ana  qiri,—  'I  poured  out  for  caulking,'  or  'pitching.'     The  ideogram 
which  is  found  in  this  passage  with  variant  '  ki-i-ri  '  is  explained  in  the 
syllabary  Sb  94.     There  is  probably  some  connection  with  the  Arabic 
s*- 

y(3  ,   pitch,  according  to  the  theory  of  Professor  Haupt  in  Schrader's 

Keilinschriften  und  das  alte  Testament,2  p.  516,  in  spite  of  Jensen's 
doubt  the  meaning  of  the  word  (Kosmologie,  p.  410).  Lagarde  connects 
it  with  Turkish,  kil,  'fuller's  earth  '(?). 

d)  ^rO  *  '  wall  ;  status  emphat.     tf^rO  >~see  Ezra  v.  8.     We  may 
compare   Kautzsch,  op.  cit.  $54  e.  and  Assyrian  '  kutallu  '  =  '  side.' 
(Senn.  VI.  28  ;  I  R.  44.  55  ;  IV  R.  52.  20  ;  II  R.  48.  50). 

c)  N"T  DD  5  '  tne  enc^  °f  tne  arm  5'  ^  e-  ^ie  nand,  the  fingers  and 
knuckles  in  distinction  to  the  arm.  Theod.  rorg  aaTpay&tovs  r/'/c 
Vulgate,  articulos  manus.  Sa'adia  on  verse  24,  nip^yKn  D 
OQ  may  be  used  of  the  surface  of  the  hand  or  foot  alike—  cf.  Mishna, 
Tn  DD  and  ^Ifl  D5  and  Syriac,  p'sath  roghl,  p'sath  ide.  See 
Syr.  I  K.  xviii.  44  ;  and  Deut.  xxviii.  35. 

Verse  6-  a)  VTVtj  'his  countenance,'  Vt  'face,'  'complexion,'  'hue.' 
Theodotion  and  the  Vulgate  both  tnmslutc  by  'figure.'  The  word  is 
not  from  the  Persian,  (XoMckc,  .Maud.  (Jr.  XXXI.),  but  is  cognate 
with  Assyrian  /imil,  'face;'  cf.  .Jensen,  /tsrhr.  1'iir  Keilschriftsfor- 
seining,  II.  43.  2;  /iinnici'ii,  IJiisspsalnien,  p.  1<»S  ;md  Delil/.sch,  Pro- 


121 

legoniena.  |>.  15:;.  zimu  is  explained  in  Assyrian  by  sak-ki,  '  surf  ace  of 
tlu-  head  '  ( V  It.  .'51.  14  c).  For  the  interchange  of  in  and  *),  cf.  Ztschr. 
fur  Assyriologie,  ii.  273,  207,  Hanpt. 

b)  *rYO&^  •     The  termination   has  the  force  of  a  dative,  as  already 
Kranichfeld  saw  (Daniel,  p.  217).     Moses  Stuart,  in  his  Commentary 
on  Daniel,  p.  130,  probably  followed  Kranichfeld  in  this  opinion..    It  is 
not  the  use  of  the  suffix  to  express  the  pronominal    ending  and  the 
preposition,  as  Kaut/sch  thought,  (Aram.  fir.  889.2,  as  in  v.  9  TVfoy}, 
nor  is  it  reflexive  (Lengerk",    Daniel,  p.  248).     The  use  of  the  suffix 
to  express  the  dative  relation  occurs  possibly  in   Assyrian  in  such  a 
connection  as  Akkadische  mid  Sumerische  Keilschrifttexte,  80.  18.  ina 
isinni  saknus.  at  the  feast  made  for  him;  probably  also  op.  fit.  80.  14. 
Adar    iarru  inaru   sa  abasu  ana   ruqetim  appa  usalbiniisii — '  Adar  the 
king,  the  son.  before   whom   his   father   makes   them    worship  far  and 
wide.'     It  is  difficult  to  know   if  the  suffix  has  a  real   dative  force   in 

like,  amatum  ubakki.  I  V  I!.  .'50.  7,  '  I  made  the  word  come  to  thee;' 
ina  biti  a  erubsii.  Akkad.  Sum.  Keilschrifttexte,  !).'{,  21,  'may  it  not 
conic  into  the  house  to  him;'  op.  cit .  Si.  14.  lummidsu,  '  may  I  erect 
to  him.'  etc. 

VerseT.    a)  Pn&>£).    Cf.  Assyrian '  pagflru '     '  to  loo>en.  free  ;'  1VR. 

:>»;.  2:5;    I  l(.  ;>o.   18.  Arabic  1*1$ .     We  find  also  the  expression,  Suttu 

pa-aru  'to  interpret  a  dream'  in  Akkad..  Sum.  Keilschriftte.xte.  20."); 
sunata  pa^'iru.  llaiipt.  Nim.  Kp..  <>.  [[..  etc.  \\'e  should  compare  also 
")u*£)  l^-eles.  viii.  1.  Tin'  Hebrew  form  rnn£)  ,  'interpretation,' 
must  be  a  loan  word  from  some  dialect  where  the  £T  was  lisped  as  a  J"|  ; 
cf.  Haiipt.  IJeiti-a-e  /ur  A »y rinlu'j ic.  i.  1S1.  n.  2. 
l->)  N^I^N-  Assyrian,  'argamannu'  A;urn.  1.  ss  ;  c.  111.  (is. ;  the 

darker    purple    >carlet    a-    nppu-cd    to    '  takiltu,'    H*?!?]!  ,     the    lighter 

purple  re«l.     Couipare  in  this  co •ction.  Zehiipi'und  in  the  Beitrage, 

i.  T)07.  on  the  different  s<irt>  of  purple. 

c)  K!D^t3H  .    var.    N^l^tD  •    »»J»y    '»«'    thr    same   word   as   the   (ireek 
imi'n'ihf/r  trt  which    I'olybius.    M.:!l.   refer.-  afi  a   dallic  ornament:  rwm 
fVf«77/    ^iirnniir   ijii'/'/tm-   o    0  ri/r   r/x'i ^'//'/<>i>   in    Vd'^arai. 
Theodotion's  translation  has  here  <'>  i/<n'><'i/>//r  !,  ^/imm-r. 

d)  'Ffyft  (i"  vv.  1C,2!)  Xfi^n).  The  ordinary  form  of  the  Ara- 
m;ean  numeral  is  W*?J"1,  cf.  Daniel  ii.  :->!).  Ilit/ig  (Daniel,  HI)  read 
here  *F\*JFl  in  order  to  connect,  it  with  KD^H  i  but  the  form  ^H^ri 
can  be  an  adjectival  formation  meaning  the  third,  like  the  Hebrew 
W?W  =  '  a  third  part.'  Num.  xv.  C  ;  Kxek.  v.  12.  tffi^fi  would  then 
have  to  be  considered  as  an  abnormal  st.  emphat.  of  an  absolute 
^Jl^n  (Kaut/sch.  op.  cit,  ]».  121).  Hevan's  idea  is  that  Kri^n  may 
be  the  Aramaic  equivalent  of  the  Arabic  '  ath-thilth '  =  "every  third 
day,"  and  that  T^n  i"  this  verse  may  be  an  error  due  to  a  scribe 
who,  not  understanding  J^^fl,  read  ^*7ll ===  third  (see  his  Com- 
16 


122 

meritary,  p.  102).  Such  a  view  seems  highly  improbable,  as  it  would 
imply  the  interpretation  that  the  reader  of  the  mysterious  writing 
should  reign  over  the  kingdom  on  alternate  days  with  the  king  him- 
self ! 

Verse  9.  a)  PtJ^SriC^O — Of.  Assyrian  'sabasu,'  rage;  Asurb.  c.  IV. 
88.  c.  VI.  108.  and  the  substantive  'sibsu,'  Asurn.  II.  106. 

Verse  11.  a)  *]•)$$— 'There  is.'  Before  suffixes  it  often  occurs  in 
the  form  JVN  i  see  Kautzsch,  op.  cit.  p.  125.  It  was  originally  a  sub- 
stantive of  the  stem  V  fV  i  cognate  with  the  Hebrew  biconsonantal 
noun  £?*,  a  formation  like  |J,  'son,'  Q^',  'name,'  and  the  Assyrian 

'isu'  \/t£^-  The  form  *j"lN  with  final  *  is  a  secondary  development 
from  the  noun,  with  the  addition  of  *.  *J"1K  comes  from  an  original 
'  yaty  '  0]!*),  the  construct  state  of  which,  VV  ,  was  pronounced  *JTVN 
(>]1N)  in  Aramaean,  initial  *  becoming  as  always  i.  The  Syriac  form 
'ithya'  'being' — TO  6vt  is  probably  a  form  with  a  denominal  Nisbe, 
as  for  example  in  '  segusya.'  The  triradical  stem  ending  in  *  is 

found  in  the  Assyrian  verb  'isu,'  to  have;  \/*B^.  In  Assyrian 
the  original  short  form  'isu,'  mentioned  above  as  corresponding  to  $* 
and  JTN  ,  occurs,  for  example,  Nimrod  Epic,  13.  3  ;  5.  37,  etc.  Similar 
biconsonantal  forms  are  nouns  like  'saptu,'  lip;  'daltu,'  door;  'ilu,' 
God  ;  '  binu,'  son  ;  '  bintu,'  daughter,  etc.  The  negative  of  Syriac  '  ith ' 
is  '  layth  '  contracted  from  '  la  +  ith.'  A  simliar  contraction  is  found  in 

*"  °  f 
the  well  known  Arabic  (j^uu   (the  only  form  of  this  stem  preserved  in 

Arabic),  and  in  Assyrian  '  lasu '  =  '  la '  +  '  isu.'  See  Keilinschriftliche 
Bihliothek,  I.,  p.  40,  1.  25,  where  we  find  the  form  'lassu'). 

Verse  12.  a)  *"K^'£30  and  frOt^'D  •  It-  is  simpler  in  agreement  with 
Bertholdt,  Daniel,  p.  378,  n.  15,  and  Kautzsch,  op.  cit.,  \  40,  rem.  1,  to 
read  *")tf'§p  and  JO&^'p ,  infinitives,  following  the  Vulgate;  Quia  spir- 

itus  amplior et  interpretatio  somnorum  et  ostensio  secretarum  et 

solutio  ligatorum  inventae  sunt  in  eo.'  Baer  and  Delitzsch,  however, 
read  "Kifep  iind  N*)^p  (Liber  Dan.  p.  11)  as  participles,  cf.  Theodo- 

tion,  <->~i-   Trr;  riKi   Tr'/s/nrov  kv  avrC)    KCU  <f>p6vjjai£    i\al  cvveaic;    kv    itrn',)  ovynpivuv 
:  I'i'-i'Ki,  Kdl  avayyt\\wv  K/><I-<>!</H--V(I.  i«d  hvvv  owdtanovg.     It  should  be  noticed 
tliat  if  *1^5P  be  read,  this  is  the  sole  instance  of  the  Pael  of  this 
stem  in  Hihlical  Aramaean.     (See  Kautzsch,  op.  cit.,  p.  65,  rem.  1). 
The  original  moaning  of  the  stem  Klt^ ',  to  dwell,  is  'to  loosen.' 

T   : 

We  may  compare  also  the  Assyrian  '  saru  ;'  see  Zimmern,  Busspsalmen, 
!>!).  In  primitive  Semitic  the  meaning  must  then  have  arisen,  'to 
caei  )Min<lles  from  the  beasts  of  burden;'  i.  e.  preparatory  to  en 
cam|)ing  I'or  the  night,  so  that  later  the  idea  'to  dwell,'  was  devel- 
oped. ((Jf.  Arabic  J^s*  loosen,  and  xJL^oo  and  J^iuO  =  ' place  of 
rest.')  Derivatives  of  (lie  Assyrian  '  s-.trii,'  to  loosen  or  begin  are  'sur- 


123 

ru,'  'beginning,'  I  R.  Tig.  I.  62,  'surraiu,'  Asurn.  I.  48,  and  ;  tisritu,' 
the  seventh  month,  the  beginner  of  the  second  half  of  the  year. 

b)  Belteshax/ar.  The  author  of  Daniel  evidently  regarded  tin-  first 
syllable  of  this  word  as  containing  the  name  of  the  god  '  Bel'  (cf.  Dan. 
iv.  ") ;  ^H^K  DCO)-  It  i>s  now  generally  recogni/ed  that  this  name  is 
a  corruption  of  the  Assyrian  '  Balatsit-ucur,'  'protect  his  life.'  (Cf. 
Oppert,  Doc.  Jur.,  p.  282 ;  Schrader,  Die  Assyr.-Bab.  Keilinschriften 
p.  l.")2.  Die  Keilinschriften  und  das  Alte  Testament,  p.  4*J!>  and  Kried. 
|)elit/sch.  Libei1  Dan.  Praef.  pp.  i\  \.)  While  it  is  true  that  we  would 
rather  expect  to  find  D  instead  of  £•  in  the  biblical  form  ^V^E'CD^D  i 
representing  an  original  x  sound;  i.  e.  'Balat-u  ncur,1  it  is  possible 
that  in  Babylonian  the  form  of  the  name  may  have  been  '  Balata- 
sii-ucur'  with  *.  In  addition  to  tbis.it  -hould  not  be  forgotten  that 
the  name  was  probably  strongly  influenced  by  tin-  similar  sound- 
ing Belsha/./ar.  (See  Delit/seli.  Assyr.  ( i  r.  (Jerm.  ed-,  p.  171.)  (ieorg 
Hoffmann's  reading.  Xtschr.  fur  A»yr..  ii.  .")('»,  '  Balal  -ar-iicm1,'  Balat 
preserve  the  king"  •does  not  seem  admissible,  lie  sees  in  '  Balat'  the 
name  of  a  god.  Saturn,  and  compares  'Sanballat,'  which  is  clearly  a  cor- 
ruption of  '  Sin  uballit.'  'Sin  (tin-  moon  -od)  has  made  him  live.'  The 
\\n/i'n-h/r  of  Phot.  Bibl.  c.  '2\'2.  quoted  by  1 1 ofl'inaii ii.  is  probably  not 
Balat.'  The  pa»a-e  a>  he  gives  it  is  as  follows  :  Qoivt*  <  Kai  ^.r/m/  rnr 
II/  1,111  \}///  h<n  \'>n/ nii/:  <  >owri.  The  writer  mav  havti  mis 

taken  l',o/.;iV//r  i'oi-  the  name  of  a  male  divinity. 

Verse  17.  a)  Tin1?-  I''"!'  the  I  nipt-rfcct  with  ^  prel'ormatix. 
Kaut/sch.  op.  cit..  p.  7!>.  Although  a  niimberof  the<e  Imperfect  forms 
with  H  preformative  havc>  an  optative  meaning,  in  some  CESCS  they 
show  simply  the  force  of  a  regular  Imperfect .  a<  in  Daniel  ii.  2S,  li!». 
Tt  cannot  be  asserted,  therefore,  that  there  i-  any  difference  in  mean- 
ing between  the  third  pers.  m.  with  *  preformative,  Or  the  same  form 
with  H  preformative. 

In  Mandaean.  as  in  Syriae.  the  regular  prefix  of  the  third  pers.  masc. 
of  the  Imperfect  is  H.  but  sometimes/.  It  is  highly  probable  that  the 
//  form  is  secondary,  being  a  development  of  an  original  /.  (see  ITaupt, 
B"itrage  i.  17.),  which,  as  is  well  known,  occurs  in  Assyrian  in  a  preca- 
-ignification.  \\'e  may  comi>are  in  this  connection,  Laurie,  lle- 
braica.  ii..  No.  L  L^lil  ;  "  Remarks  on  an  Assyrian  Precative  in  Daniel." 

In  ^landaean.  as  in  Aramaean,  the  two  prefixes  appear  to  have  an 
equal  force  ;  so  much  so  that  in  the  former  language  the  /  sometimes 
occui's  by  mistake  for  the  unchangeable  //  of  the  first  person.  See 
Ndldeke,  Mandaisdie  (Jrammatik.  '4.  Kill,  ami  for  examples  in  Mandaean 
of  the  Imperfect  of  the  verb  {OPT  '  to  be,'  with  ^  preformative,  see 
op.  cit.,  §  IDC. 

Imperfect  forms  with  I  are  also  found  in  the  dialect  of  the  Babylo- 
nian Talmud  ;  see  Lu/zato.  (Jrammatik  des  Idioms  des  Thalmud  Babli, 
p.  S4. 


m 


Verse  19.  a)  pjfttt  ,  from  V^lf  ,  to  tremble.  The  same  stem  is 
seen  in  the  Assyrian  'zu,'  storm,  bird  of  the  storm;  see  Zimmern, 
Busspsalmen,  94. 

b)  \11D1p    [D    P^fn  —  fearing  before  him  —  cf.  Assyrian,  'Japan 
esriti  ----  aplaxma.'     I  reverenced   (before)  the   shrines,  Asurb.  c.   X. 
78;  also  IK  11.  14,  etc. 

c)  N3:»k  •     We  may  compare  Assyrian  '  c.ibu,'  to  wish,  I  R.  Saigon 
Barrel  Cylinder,  1.  42,  from  which  the  derivative  '  tegbitu/  'a  wish;' 
also  '  gibutu,'  '  desire  ;'  see  Jensen,  Ztschr.  fur  Keilschriftsforschune, 
ii.  26/27. 

d)  NHD  -     Ptc.  Haphel  of  NTT  '  to  live.'    The  older  .authorities  con- 

..    —  T  ~; 

sidered  it  the  participle  of  KHD  i   to   strike,  evidently  reading  here 

T     : 

NHO  •  Thus,  Theodotion  translated  not  n'vq  rjpoii'teTo  av-bq  ITVTTTSV,  while 
the  Vulgate  has  'percutiebat.'  It  is  now  generally  accepted,  however, 
that  this  is  the  participle  of  Wtl  ,  to  live,  as  indeed  the  context 
plainly  shows.  (Cf.  Bertholdt,  Daniel,  p.  362,  19  ;  Havernick,  Daniel, 
196  ;  v.  Lengerke,  257/8  ;  Hitzig,  Daniel,  83,  etc.  etc.)  For  this  form 
KfTD  of  the  Haphel  Ptc.  of  fr$*n  ,  we  may  compare  the  Syriac  Aphel 
'axi,'  with  the  Participle  'maxe.'  Such  forms  are  based  on  the  anal- 
ogy of  the  verbs  mediae  geminatae.  Cf.  Nb'ldeke,  Syrische  Gram- 
matik,  $  183,  and  the  Aphel  '  abez  '  partc.  '  mabez  '  from  the  stem 


is  not  therefore-  to  be  considered  as  representing  an  original 
'  as  Kautzsch  thought  (op.  cit.  p.  29  and  see  also  Nbldeke,  Gbtt. 
Gel.  Anzeigen,  1884,  p.  1018).  Such  an  analogy  between  fc$*n  and  the 
stems  mediae  geminatae  found  in  the  Imperfect  and  in  the  Aphel  of 
the  verb  in  Syriac,  is  easily  understood  when  it  is  remembered  that  the 
primitive  form  of  X*(l  is  VPl  C  xayiwa"  —  intransitive)  a  trace  of  which 

G    ,-  ^  ^ 

is  still  found  in  the  Arabic  ^jLjy^  ,  animal,  and  in  the  Aramaic 
KHVn  •  This  Vll  became  naturally  **("|  which  was  itself  a  form  yy  . 
It  is  interesting  to  note  here  that  Syriac  Aphel  forms  like  '  abez,'  Partc. 
'mabez'  of  yy  verbs  are  in  their  turn  based  on  the  analogy  of  verbs 
|£  .  Thus,  the  Aphel  of  Syriac  'n'faq'  is  '  appeq,'  Partc.  'mappeq.' 
For  analogy  in  the  Semitic  languages  in  general,  cf.  Huizinga,  Disserta- 
tion on  "Analogy  in  the  Semitic  Languages,"  Baltimore,  1891. 

\Vrse  21.  a)  "V*)p?  Assyrian  'taradu'  '  drive  away,'  (passim);  —  for 
ex.  'ina  zumrisu  litrud,'  'from  his  body  may  he  drive  it  ;'  IV  R.  15.  27A. 

1))  ^1^.  This  reading  as  a  passive  is  possible  and,  moreover,  is 
indicated  as  the  correct  one  by  the  old  translators  ;  Theodotion.  fW/i^/. 
Vers.  Mass.  re#elrai:  Viilu;.,  'positmn  est,'  Syriac,  'csCAve.'  Sec  also 
Lcii,^crk(!,  Daniel,  p.  25!>  ;  llity.ig,  Daniel,  p.  SI.  Kautzsch,  op.  cit.,  p. 
81,  however,  reads  liei'e  V1^,  a  tliird  pers.  pi.  Pa'il,  unnecessarily 
(lie  ")  IVoinllie  following  word  Dj/*V  l;or  t  lie  use  <»!'  this 


125 

verb  ^1£*  with  the  preposition  Q^,  ef.  Pesh.  St.  John  v.  18,  "s'wa  'am." 
and  in  Hebrew  the  construction  Q^  ^55^3  in  I)>s-  xxviii.  1  ;  cxliii.  7. 
In  Hebrew  the  construction  p  Hlii*  is  also  found  ;  cf.  Ps.  xviii.  34. 
A  precisely  equivalent  usage  is  that  of  the  Assyrian  'emu  kimar  for 
which  see  note  to  Cyrus  Cyl.  1.  11. 

That  'emu'  has  the  meaning  'be  like,'  is  shown  by  the  comparison 
'  emu  '  =  '  masalu.'  V  R.  47.  21- Ja.  It  seems  to  me  rather  doubtful  if  the 
stem  ni££*  •  Arab,  sawa' .  Syr.  >'wa.  is  to  be  considered  with  /immern 
a  common  Semitic  pusses-ion  (Ztschr.  fur  Assyr.,  v.  85 ff.).  He  cites 
the  Assyrian  form  '  MI-U-U  '  =  '  sum-mu-u,'  found  V  R.  28-87  e.  f. 
asthePiel  Infinitive  of  HlC*  •  (Cf.  also  Bussps.,  16.  E.  A  similar 
form  to  'sii-u-u'  is  "  qu-u-u'  =  qum-mu-u  also  V  K  1.  c.)  Zimmern 
then  proceeds  to  argue  that  an  original  1  may  remain  in  a  few  verbs  H^ 
in  Assyrian,  contrary  to  Haupt.  Ztsehr.  fiir  Assyr.  ii.  259.  86  and  Bei- 
trage,  i.  293-300. 

Although  the  occurrence  in  Assyrian  of  the  three  signs  'pi/  'me" 
and  'ma,'  indifferently  used  in  the  form  '  n-<a-me,"  mentioned  by  Zim- 
mern,  certainly  does  seem  t<>  indicate  a  n-  pronunciation,  I  am  still  by 
no  means  convinced  that  the  //•  i>  necessarily  a  radical  letter  of  the  stem 
and  that  consequently  '  u-ame  ('  u-awe  )  is  to  be  considered  the  Inten- 
sive of  a  stem  niu*-  :ni<l  that  '  iiimiml '  =  '  su-n-n  '  are  Infinitives  of 
this  Intensive.  It  appears  quite  possible  to  regard  these  forms  as 
two  variations  of  the  Shaphel  Infinitive  of  the  stein  HOJ7  =  4  tA|mn,'  be 
like,  resemble,  and  to  consider  the  m  as  a  radical.  In  this  case  the  tr 
pronunciation  in  the  Shaphel  Intin.  lSu-u-u'  must  be  understood  sim- 
ply as  a  secondary  /'•  development  from  the  original  ni.  which  is  seen  in 
tin  uMial  1'orm  of  the  I nlin .  Shaphel.  '  ^unimfi.'  Furthermore,  the  stem 

illu*-  common  to  Hebrew.  Syria*-  and  Arabic,  may  itself  be  a   Shaphel 
1'ormation  from  the  same  >ii'in  as  A»\  rian  '  siimmn  ;'  i.  e.  from 
Amiand's  idea  that  As-yrian  'emiV   is  to  be  derived,  not  from 
but  from   an  original  \/Xin  ('-)  seems  to  me  quite   untenable.     (Tf. 
Xtsdir.  fur  A.88yr.  ii.  2o.">.) 

c)  J7DZD^ — from  V'^nV  •  which  is  ]io>sibl\  the  same  stem  as  in 
1  cubhu  '  'linger:'  i.e.  'the  dipping  member '(?)•  We  may  comi)are 
ian  'eebu."  'to  dye.'  lonnd  in  the  substantive  'cibutum '  =  tinctio, 
immersio.  I  III.  .'JO.  (\'l  f.  There  are  three  words  of  this  form  '  (Mbutum  ' 
in  Assyrian;  vi/,.,  beside-  the  above;  "  cibiitu  '  =  '  desire  '  (see  above, 
note  c.  to  v.  1!)),  and  ''  cibutu  '  =  '  a  pnu-ious  thing.'  (Compare  for  these 
foi'inv  .Jensen.  Xtschr.  fur  Keilschril'tslorschung.  ii.  26/27. 

Verse  25.  a)  For  exhaustive  discussion  of  this  verse  see  ch.  I.  of 
this  dissertation.  pDIlD  —  half-minas,  from  the  stem  D"")5  ,  meaning 
'break'  in  the  sense  of  dividing  into  parts.  We  may  compare  .Jen- 
miah  \vi.  7  and  Isaiah  Iviii.  7.  where  it  is  used  of  the  breaking  of  bread. 
The  original  meaning  of  D^D  ,  therefore,  seems  to  be  'a  piece'  or 
'portion.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  only  in  the  word  '  half-mina, 


126 

does  the  meaning  '  half  belong  to  this  stein,  so  that  in  this  sense  D""]£D 
may  be  a  loan-word  in  Aramaean,  (See  Hoffmann,  Ztschr.  fur  Assyr. 
ii.  p.  47.) 

The  form  £?*")£)  with  £*,  discovered  by  flaimeau  on  the  weights,  may 
represent  a  distinctively  Assyrian  pronunciation  of  the  word.  (See  in 
this  connection,  Noldeke,  Ztschr.  fur  Assyr.  i.  418.) 

Concerning  the  pronunciation  of  D  and  &  in  Assyn.-IJabylonian 
there  seems  to  be  a  confusion  of  ideas  among  scholars.  It  seems  evi- 
dent that  the  pronunciation  of  these  sibilants  in  Nineveh  was  not 
identical  with  that  common  in  Babylonia,  contrary  to  the  idea  of 
Delitzsch  (Paradies,  p.  131)  that  original  $  in  both  Assyrian  and 
Babylonian  later  became  confused  with  D  ,  just  as  in  Ethiopic.  (See 
also  his  Assyrische  Grammatik,  p.  108  and  cf.  Hommel,  Jagdin- 
schriften,  p.  29.  5  and  Semiten,  p.  509.)  The  difference  between  the 
sibilants  seems  not  to  have  been  a  temporal  one  but  rather  local.  It  is 
evident  from  numerous  examples  in  the  inscriptions  that  $  was  pro- 
nounced s  in  the  northern  kingdom  but  s  in  the  southern,  while  D  was 
ty  in  Assyria,  but  had  its  true  value  in  Babylonia.  Thus,  in  the 
Assyrian  inscriptions  we  find  EfjWTP  in  the  form  'Ursalimmu'  with 
s  for  *,  '  Asdudu '  for  IIIJ^X  etc.,  while  the  Babylonian  month  names 
Nisanu,  Hebr.  JDO  5  Kislinm,  Hebr.  1*705 '  etc<  are  sufficient  evidence 
that  D  and  £?'  had  their  true  value  in  the  south.  (For  further  exam- 
ples and  full  discussion,  see  Haupt,  J.  H.  U.  Circulars,  No.  59,  p.  118.) 
The  ordinary  scriptural  spelling  of  our  word  D*")D  with  D  is  not  then 
necessarily  to  be  considered  a  later  usage  as  Halevy  thought,  (Recher- 
ches  Bibliques,  p.  491),  probably  following  the  opinion  cf  Delitzsch 
regarding  the  temporal  difference  between  D  and  $. 


INDEX  OF   ASSYRIAN  WORDS   AND  FORMS  CITED 
IN  THE  APPENDICES. 


THE    NUMBERS    REFER    TO    THE    PAGES. 


Againtanu  
Agane  

95   bela 

100   ma'dis 

83  |  r-ihiifn 

I9fi 

82   biltu 

82    maxru  . 

118 

gillu  75 
Qalmat  qaqqadi..  75 
gippatu  94 
qalqaltum  81 
qiru                        V'fl 

83   billtu 

101    maxiru. 

118 

adaru 

S3    hdtu  

119   maxxutis  

1"3    niatu 

....   74 
74 

74    Balatsu-uvur.... 
96    bit  mummu  
76  gallu 

akitu 

101    niuinmu  

....101 

alaktu  
Alman 

101    tnandi 

83 

100  garanu  
96   gararu       

76    MAS.  MAS... 
7»>    massu  

....  96 
....  96 

radu 

96 

Elammij'a 

ridtl 

96 

Elamta^ 

74   Gutium  
!M    dadda.ru. 

100   mustaru  

....  75 

94 

aim 

s:i    nii(,'ru  

....  74 

Hutu 

99 

rlitum  
IM  -  isaru  

99   Dilbat  

ll'.i    Maradda.  ... 

.  .    nn 

-sa 

76  82 

\  }    marratu 

83 

86'6 

..81,82 
96 

rilu  

•uirtu  

....  83 

sibku 

Umlia^ 

,S2    l)urkara-u  
<I4    7|"i 

.  H7    ina-ilaxu  

subatsun 

82 

Ammananu  
Ainnanu  
Umman-nmnda. 
1M-RI-A  

I'M    ma-  ilu 

74    125 

sadaxu  
^uxuzsun 

....  76 

S2 

94   Zagmuku  
75    y.inui  
HI    /aiiiaina         .... 

Hf>    nia-taku  

loturnu     ... 

sillll    

S.llll    

salami; 

...     98 

....  us 

..74,75 
98 

nn    matitan  .     .. 

83    Xaniban     .   . 

S3    mitutftn  
1M     in  Tit  ami 

....   7ii 

74    x  a  in  in  u 

\  ii'-un. 

HI    xarine  
',  i    Xarsagkalama.. 
axu  
MI;    \u--a\vii 

.  Kid    nadu  
.  nn    nadu  

....100 

....   74 

.><uliltu  

.  .  .  ns 
96 

en 

AN-TA-HAL-KI. 

.   si     na/.a/ii  
xl    napraku 

-  1  1  n  1  1  ml  
saplitiun  
sanl  
>urru  
SES.  GAL... 
tcctti  t  u 

....125 
100,  122 

....'.  96 
124 

isinnu  

'.it,    xi-ixtu  
adu 

si     n  a-  u 

.100 

121     <|(  i  1^-1 

LOO 

isittu 

'Mi    tatapu 

7»'»    SaNallat 


appuiia  

H'.i    tnnu  

s:j    ki 

111*    Sinianu 

•-•iparda 

ta/,imtu  
tukku 

....   74 
100 

S3    kilallan 

U<|U 

7ti 

i-rah            

117    kilatati  

.  76    sattukku. 

....  -,» 

.    ..   US 
....   77 

TU-KIIrXU 

tilanis 

83 

74 

Urigallu 

'.Hi    kullatan  
9ti    kima 

.  76    pixatu  
74    ptikil 

IK    ^  \  L 

Tema  
tamxaru  

t  am-i  lu 

95 
....118 

74 



'•'I     iiaiiu 

122    ka^ani 

.    74     DH<  1  ll 

...     7ti 
....  77 

....   82 

S2 

isdixu  . 

76   kisurru.. 

74     pi<ja 

76 

i  -  x  u  r 

83   karmis  . 

74    paraku 

tappatu  
tapputu 

....   76 

76 

ESnuuak  
Maun 

99   parakku 

83   kissu 

i  •"•    I'arsu 

97 

t  a  nl 

75 

l-lnnu'^u  

US-TUR-XU.... 

uttaddu  
atxu  

94    ku^taru 

74 

taru 

75 

.  83   kutallu  

120   patu     

83 

tardinnu.  ... 
taranu 

75 

7<i    kituni 

83 

.  76   labanu  appi  
.  76   littaskaru  

.101    putaqu  

.  ,s:;    ,-ibil   

....  76 
....  125 

Tisritu  

123 

itxAtu  
bfilu... 

.101    mcdilu.  . 

ebil... 

..  125 

128 


ARAMAIC   WORDS  AND   FORMS. 


131 

133 

.111,  118 
XT: 130 

mnn 121 

rr 130 

JW 134 

xnrn 134 

us 


.  134 
.  135 
.130 
.13)3 
.118 
.ll'.i 
.134 
.133 
.  133 


iin 


in) 
135 

D3  ........  120 

'1D"13....135,  136 


JOV 134 

niDTp 134 


pt:n Us 

hw ii!' 

mzy....i34, 135 

131 

133 

.117,118 

131 

. .    131