Bible Commentaries
Daniel 1

Verses 1-21

II

THE HISTORY IN THE FIRST CHAPTER

Daniel 1:1-21

Having devoted chapter I to an introduction to the book of Daniel we now come to its exposition. We closed chapter I with an analysis which consists of two great divisions, namely:

1. The history of Daniel.

2. The grouped and correlated prophetic sections. Following this analysis we will dispose of the historical sections before attempting to expound the related visions and dreams. In chapter I some details belonging to introduction were left to be considered in the exposition. The historical character of this book depends, mainly, upon the accuracy of its references to Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus. Of course, if there was no siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of Jehoiakim, no carrying away of the sacred vessels of the Temple at that time, no deportation of captives to Babylon at that time, no Daniel of that period, no Belshazzar, and no Darius the Medo, and if the references to the fall of Babylon as connected with Cyrus are radically out of harmony with the true history of Cyrus, then we must abandon all ideas of the book as history or as inspired.

The most important of all these references as bearing upon the historical character of the book is contained in Daniel I, which is intended as an introduction to the whole book. It begins thus:

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim, king of Judah, into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God; and he carried them into the land of Shinar to the house of his god: and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god. And the king spake unto Asphenaz, the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring in certain of the children of Israel, even of the seed royal and of the nobles; youths in whom was no blemish, but well favoured and skilful in all wisdom, and endued with knowledge and understanding science, and such as had ability to stand in the king’s palace; and that he should then teach them the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

This paragraph is fundamental, and decisive on the question of historicity. It certainly affirms:

1. A siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of Jehoiakim) king of Judah.

2. The submission of the Jewish king.

3. The carrying away into Babylon of a part of the sacred vessels of the Temple.

4. The deportation of a select few of the youths of the royal seed and of the nobility (including Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, as named in Daniel 1:6).

5. It affirms also by implication the approximate age of these youths by the requirement that they must already be "skilful in all wisdom, and endued with knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability to stand in the king’s palace."

6. Again by implication (Daniel 1:4), connected with the strict adherence to these youths to the Mosaic law of meats and drinks (Daniel 1:8-16) must affirm an environment at Jerusalem when they were born, and during their youth, to produce such education and character as they possess when introduced into this story. For example, such education of the royal seed and of the nobility, and such adherence to the Mosaic law would have been impossible in Manasseh’s reign.

7. Finally, the whole paragraph affirms a political situation calling for its alleged facts.

In determining the historical veracity of these seven affirmations we may look for confirmation or contradiction to the following sources of information:

1. The second book of Kings on the period.

2. The prophecies of Jeremiah, a contemporary.

3. The second book of Chronicles.

4. The book of Ezekiel, a later contemporary.

5. Any available Chaldean history of Nebuchadnezzar’s time.

In order of time we first consider affirmations Daniel 1:5-6; that is, do we find in Kings and Chronicles a Jerusalem environment that could produce such education and character as these royal youths and nobles are said to possess in the third year of Jehoiakim? The answer is overwhelmingly in favor of the probability of the story in Daniel. Jehoiakim was a son of the good king Josiah. Josiah had been dead but a little over three years. It was in the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign that the lost book of Moses was found. The finding of this book brought about the great reformation, the great revival of education, and the purity of court life that distinguished his reign. Assuming from the attainments (Daniel 1:4) that he possessed when led into exile, Daniel could not well have been less than twenty years old at that time, so that he was about four years old when the book of the law was found, and grew up and was educated in all the later glory of Josiah’s reign. This fact accounts for both his attainments and character. (See Kings and Chronicles on the reign of Josiah.)

We now seek for confirmation or contradiction of affirmations 1-3, i. e., the siege of Jerusalem, the submission of the Jewish king, the carrying away of part of the sacred vessels. In 2 Kings 23:31-36 he tells how Pharaoh-Necho, after slaying Josiah, deposed his son Jehoahaz after a three months’ reign and set Eliakim, another son, on the throne, changing his name to Jehoiakim and making him a dependent of Egypt. Then the record thus continues:

In his days Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him. And the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by his servants the prophets.

On the same point the Chronicler says, "Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also carried off the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon and put them in his temple at Babylon.

These accounts corroborate Daniel thus far:

1. That Nebuchadnezzar did come up against Jerusalem in the days of Jehoiakim.

2. He did receive the subjection of Jehoiakim, who had been subject to Egypt.

3. He did carry away to Babylon a part of the sacred vessels.

4. Neither gives any other account of Nebuchadnezzar coming up against Jerusalem nor of the deportation of the sacred vessels in the days of Jehoiakim. While they do not date the coming, nor refer to a deportation of youths of the royal family and of the nobles, they say nothing against either. So far as they testify they corroborate Daniel. This corroboration is enhanced in value by the fact that Kings and Chronicles both testify that Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem three times:

(1) In the reign of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chronicles 36:5-7), which Daniel dates in his third year (Daniel 1:1).

(2) In the reign of Jehoiakim’s son, Jehoiachim (2 Kings 24:10-17 and 2 Chronicles 36:10).

(3) In the reign of Zedekiah, brother of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 25:1-12 and 2 Chronicles 36:17-21).

And in every case there was a deportation of captives and of the sacred furniture of the Temple; the second time the deportation of both was larger than the first and the third time larger than the second. It was ever-increasing severity as the rebellions were repeated. The corroboration is clinched by this additional testimony: Jehoiakim, having in his third year submitted to Nebuchadnezzar, did not rebel against him until three years later (2 Kings 24:1), and so there was no reason for a siege of Jerusalem in the campaign following the battle of Charchemish, which occurred in his fourth year (Jeremiah 46:2). It was two years after the battle of Charchemish before Jehoiakim rebelled. As the power of Egypt was completely broken by the Charchemish campaign, this rebellion could not have been formidable. It continued, however, through the rest of his reign. In the latter part of his reign Nebuchadnezzar prepares to punish him. His armies arrive, however, after Jehoiakim’s death in the three months’ reign of his son, and before the siege is concluded Nebuchadnezzar himself arrives (2 Kings 24:10-12), and one year after, the campaign following the battle was closed, for we find Nebuchadnezzar back in Babylon the next year (Daniel 2:1).

We now turn to Jeremiah for confirmation or contradiction of affirmations 1, 2, and 3. The only prophecy in the book of Jeremiah directly against Jehoiakim is found in Jeremiah 22:18-23, which has no bearing on the matter in hand, unless (which is barely possible) this expression, "The wind shall feed all thy shepherds and thy lovers shall go into captivity," refers to the deportation in his third year. There is a prophecy against the people: "in the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim" (Jeremiah 26:1). There are prophecies also dated in the fourth and fifth years of his reign (Jeremiah 36). The only passage clearly in point is found in Jeremiah 35:11. The chapter begins: "The word which came unto Jeremiah from Jehovah in the days of Jehoiakim." The matter touches the Rechabites who thus account for their presence in Jerusalem: "But it came to pass, when Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came up into the land, that we said, come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians; so we dwell at Jerusalem."

On this strong and pertinent testimony note:

(1) Its grouping. It is immediately followed by a prophecy of the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 36:1), and that immediately by an account dated in his fifth year (Jeremiah 36:9).

(2) These Rechabites were already dwelling in Jerusalem.

(3) They had left their homes to seek safety there, fleeing before an invasion led by Nebuchadnezzar with a combined army of Chaldeans and Syrians. Compare the statement of the Rechabites with 2 Kings 24:1-2, which refers first to Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Jehoiakim, and adds: "And the Lord sent against him (Jehoiakim) bands of the Chaldeans, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon," from all which appears the quadruple composition of Nebuchadnezzar’s forces in his first invasion of Judah.

The only way in which the assailants of Daniel I: I seek to evade the decisive force of this testimony from Jeremiah is to arbitrarily detach it from its grouping and assign it to the latter part of Jehoiakim’s reign, in which period no Bible authority puts an invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. Moreover and especially, an invasion in the latter part of Jehoiakim’s reign would jam it up against the second invasion by Nebuchadnezzar, which occurred in the three months of Jehoiachin’s reign (2 Kings 24:8-12; 2 Chronicles 36:8-10). It is incredible that there should be two such invasions by Nebuchadnezzar within & few months. Armies could not have been twice mobilized and moved such distances and with such transporation in such short space of time. A military man with the maps before him showing how a Babylonian army must first be moved up the Euphrates to Charchemish, thence by Damascus to combine with the Syrians, thence down the left bank of the Jordan to combine with the Moabites and Ammonites, and thence to Jerusalem, and also having knowledge of the country to be passed over and the transport system of that day, would not believe it possible that two such expeditions could be conducted in the time limits arbitrarily assigned by civilian critics.

Dr. Farrar, in a paragraph bristling with other blunders, says, "It was only after the battle of Charchemish that any siege of Jerusalem would have been possible." Truth reverses this statement. It was only after Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim that the battle of Charchemish became possible. This is the reasoning:

1. Pharaoh-Necho was lord suzerain of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34), having made him king.

2. In the third year of Jehoiakim Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah, took Jerusalem, and Jehoiakim became his servant. But Nebuchadnezzar is called home by his father’s death, and himself becomes king of Babylon (Daniel 1:1; Jeremiah 25:1).

3. Nebuchadnezzar, being away and his armies withdrawn, Pharaoh-Necho, who had been mobilizing his armies during Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of his dependencies, marches rapidly against Babylon the following year.

4. Nebuchadnezzar, now king, has time only to meet him at Charchemish at the passage of the Euphrates, and there in the fourth year of Jehoiakim gains a decisive victory (Jeremiah 25:1; Jeremiah 46:2).

5. There could have been no siege of Jerusalem after the battle of Charchemish, and in that campaign, because Jehoiakim, after his submission in his third year, did not rebel until his sixth year (2 Kings 24:1-2), and the campaign commencing with the battle of Charchemish in his fourth year (Jeremiah 46:2) and in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1), was ended that very year, for we find Nebuchadnezzar back at Babylon in his second year (Daniel 2:1).

6. What the united and unbroken Bible testimony declares is confirmed in some of its details by the Chaldean historian Berosus, as preserved in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities X, 11:1, and Contra Apion 1:19. Berosus says -

(1) Nebuchadnezzar was but a young man at the time of his first westward campaign against Egypt and its dependencies, and only represented his aged and infirm father Nabopolassar.

(2) While prosecuting this campaign he learned of his father’s death and committing "the captives he had taken from the Jews, Phenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor to Babylonia by the usual circuitous route, while he himself went in haste, having but a few with him, over the desert to Babylon and became king."

But Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:1) says that Nebuchadnezzar did not become king until the fourth year of Jehoiakim, hence the preceding campaign in which he had taken "captives of Jews" was in the third year of Jehoiakim and so harmonizes with Daniel 1:1. Only a desperate radical critic could put this rapid journey of Nebuchadnezzar’s "over the desert" after the battle of Charchemish because (1) the straight road from Charchemish to Babylon was down the Euphrates and outside of the desert; (2) there was no occasion to return to Babylon after that battle, as he was already king (Jeremiah 25:1) ; (3) he could not in that battle have gained "captives of Jews" because they submitted the year before, and did not rebel until two years after the battle (Daniel 1:1 and 2 Kings 24:1).

I do not affirm that Berosus or Josephus gives clear accounts throughout. Both of them muddle and jumble matters as if they were radical critics, particularly Josephus in his own account of Daniel. But Daniel, Jeremiah, Kings, and Chronicles coincide throughout.

We have already said that Daniel I affirms by implication a political situation to justify its statements. That political situation we find in Kings, Jeremiah, and Chronicles. The kingdom of Judah in Josiah’s time was sandwiched between the two great powers, Egypt and Assyria. Judah was a dependence of Assyria. Pharaoh-Necho slew Josiah and broke the Assyrian power at the first battle of Charchemish and deposed one son of Josiah and set up another, Jehoiakim, tributary to himself. But in the meantime Nabopolassar had made Babylon a greater power than Assyria had been. He would not rest content while Egypt held all Syria and Palestine, blocking his way to the Mediterranean Sea. So, being himself old and infirm, he sends his young son, Nebuchadnezzar, to follow the old line of invasion adopted by Chedorlaomer in the days of Abraham (Genesis 14) ; Syria, Ammon, Moab and Jerusalem fall before him (2 Kings 24:1-2, and 2 Chronicles 36:6-7; Jeremiah 35:11; Daniel 1:1). This the third year of Jehoiakim. News of his father’s death stops his victorious campaign. His armies, with the prisoners, are sent back the long way they had come, and he himself rapidly returns the short way across the desert. Arriving he is made king. Pharaoh-Necho, aroused by this conquest of his dependencies and encouraged by the withdrawal of Nebuchadnezzar’s army, pushes his own army rapidly to Charohemish, the strategical passage of the Euphrates. Nebuchadnezzar, now king, meets him at Charchemish, fourth year of Jehoiakim and first year of his own reign (Jeremiah 46:1-12). The campaign is concluded in the year, and the next year or second year of Nebuchadnezzar he is back in Babylon examining into the proficiency of the captives taken in his first invasion (Daniel 2:1). This same year (second of Nebuchadnezzar’s and fifth of Jehoiakim’s), Jehoiakim prepares to rebel against the solemn warnings of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:9-31), and the next year he does rebel (2 Kings 24:1), and thus brings about the second invasion by Nebuchadnezzar in the three months’ reign of his son (2 Kings 24:10-12).

We conclude the argument on this point with the testimony of Ezekiel, a fellow exile and contemporary of Daniel, given some years later, bearing upon the fact that Daniel was a well known historical personage, and bearing witness to his remarkable righteousness and wisdom. In the days of Abraham God promised to spare Sodom if ten righteous men could be found in it. But, speaking concerning the awful back-sliding of Israel both in Judea and in exile, God says twice to Ezekiel: "Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness" (Ezekiel 14:14; Ezekiel 14:20). And to the king of Tyre he says, "Art thou wiser than Daniel?" It is not merely puerile to deny these references of Ezekiel to the Daniel of this book and ascribe them to some man unknown to history or tradition, but it suggests an incorrigible aversion from the belief of the truth akin to judicial blindness. Solomon’s fame for wisdom filled the world when he was but a young man. And to decry this testimony on account of Daniel’s youth ignores the fact that God gave to Daniel his wisdom as he had given it to Solomon, and that when Ezekiel wrote, Daniel was in his prime and occupied a position of worldwide importance.

We have thus corroborated every historical particular in the first chapter of Daniel. There was just the political situation to call forth its alleged facts. Ezekiel, a contemporary, certifies to the person, righteousness and wisdom of Daniel. There is no other Daniel known to history or tradition to whom his words can apply. The first book of Maccabees expressly refers to the Daniel of this book. Our Lord expressly certifies to his person and his prophecy. Zechariah borrows from the symbolism of his visions and Nehemiah imitates his prayer. Berosus, the Chaldean historian, corroborates the statement (Daniel 1:1), that there was a deportation of Jewish captives in Nebuchadnezzar’s first invasion of Judea, and both Berosus and Jeremiah confirm his statement (Daniel 1:5) – "Three years" – and Daniel 2:1) that Nebuchadnezzar was only vice-regent in this first campaign, but became king at its close.

The current testimony of all the witnesses explains how this first campaign roused Egypt and led to the battle of Charchemish, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was king and had no occasion to return immediately thereafter to Babylon, but finished the campaign the same year, completely breaking the power of Egypt (2 Kings 24:7), and was back in Babylon in his second year (Daniel 2:1), which was consonant with Jehoiakim’s fifth year. That Jehoiakim, against the repeated warnings of Jeremiah, rebelled in his sixth year, though Egypt was not now in position to help him, which rebellion led to Nebuchadnezzar’s second siege of Jerusalem three months after his death. When, then, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Chronicles corroborate the minute particulars of this first chapter, and both inter-biblical records and traditions, and the whole weight of New Testament authority confirm it, we cannot explain Driver’s "doubt" of its accuracy, nor Farrar’s bold denial of its truth on any theory of fairness, friendliness, and reverence toward Old Testament books. If the reader will examine the first appendix to Sir Robert Anderson’s Daniel in the Critics’ Den, he will find the statement of Daniel I: I confirmed by the strictest test of chronology.

The statement in this first chapter that certain noble youths, remarkable for physical beauty, education, wisdom, and courtly bearing, were led captive and trained in the language and learning of their captors with a view to service in the palace, is in line with all Oriental history, ancient or modern. The attainments of Daniel in the learning of the Chaldeans finds a parallel in both Joseph and Moses in Egypt under somewhat similar conditions; so no allegation in this chapter has an air of improbability.

Having thus examined at length and critically the historical introduction to the book, we may advance more rapidly in dealing with the rest of the historical sections of Daniel’s life, which extended to the third year of Cyrus. Modern archeological research has brought to light so much information on the religion, laws, customs, learning, architecture, agriculture, commerce, business habits, and everyday life of the of the ancient Babylonians that we may construct a mind picture of the great city and its people as Daniel saw them six hundred years before Christ, that would be almost as faithful in detail as a mental impression gained by a visit to Paris, Berlin, or London. The reader will find just such a picture in the second chapter of Deane’s Daniel, His Life and Times. By all means read it and extend your reading when you can to all the authorities he cites. It does not lie within the purpose or compass of these discussions to go into such details.

QUESTIONS

1. Upon what does the historical character of this book mainly depend and, in general, what the argument?

2. What is the most important reference as bearing upon the historical character of the book and what relation does the first chapter of Daniel bear to the whole book?

3. What are the affirmations of Daniel 1:1-4?

4. To what sources may we look for confirmation or contradiction of these affirmations?

5. What is the proof that there was an environment in Jerusalem conducive to the education and character of the royal youths such as Daniel and his comrades are here said to have had?

6. What is the proof of the siege of Jerusalem and the carrying away captives in 2 Kings and how confirmed by 2 Chronicles?

7. What is the proof from Jeremiah?

8. How do assailants of Daniel 1:1 seek to evade the force of the testimony of Jeremiah and what is the reply?

9. What Dr. Farrar’s statement about the siege of Jerusalem, what is really the truth of the matter, and what the arguments?

10. What is the testimony of Berosus on this point and what its bearing?

11. What is the testimony of Jeremiah on this point and what the arguments here against the position of the radical critics?

12. What is the proof that the political situation at that time justifies the statements in Daniel I?

13. What is the testimony of Ezekiel and its argument?

14. What is the summary of the proof of a historical and personal Daniel?

15. Give a restatement of the facts related to the battle of Charchemish.

16. What the circumstantial proof of the accuracy of the history in Daniel I pertaining to the "youths" and what parallels in the Bible of this case?

17. How have we in modern times become acquainted with all the details of life in Babylon in the times of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar?