Click to donate today!
by Johann Peter Lange
THEOLOGICALLY AND HOMILETICALLY EXPOUNDED
Dr. OTTO ZÖCKLER,
Professor Of Theology In The University Of Greifswald, Prussia
TRANSLATED, ENLARGED, AND EDITED
JAMES STRONG, S.T.D.,
Professor Of Exegetical Theology In Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, N.J.
THE PROPHET DANIEL
§ 1. The Book of Daniel, Considered as a Prototype of the Canonical Apocalypse
The peculiarities of the book of Daniel, which explain, on the one hand, its position in the Jewish canon among the historical Hagiographa, and, on the other, its being classed in the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Luther, with the writings of the greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, are both internal and external. They arise chiefly from the circumstance that the writer lived and wrought in Babylonia, not as a member of the community of exiled Jews, but as a naturalized Babylonian at the court of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors—not, like Ezekiel, discharging priestly functions among his people, but performing duty as an officer of the state and chief of the Magi. He was thus possessed of honors and emoluments akin to those of Joseph, his patriarchal prototype, at the court of the Egyptian Pharaoh; but his removal, at a later date, from his prominent position, and his death, not long after the overthrow of the Chaldæan dynasty by the Persians, prevented his exerting a decisive influence on the welfare of his people.
The book of Daniel’s prophecies owes its origin to a period of the deepest national misery of the people of God—a time of the profoundest degradation and confusion, which finds its only parallel in the condition of Israel, when, wholly separated from its native soil, it languished in Egypt, the ignominious “house of bondage” and oppressive “iron furnace” (Deuteronomy 5:6; Deuteronomy 4:20; 1 Kings 8:51; Jeremiah 11:4); but this earlier period has its counterpart here, not only retrospectively as regards the severity of the judgment and humiliation, but also prospectively as respects the abundance of gracious visitation, and the wonderful displays of the Divine power, love, and faithfulness. Both the humiliation and the glory present in the humiliation are revealed in these prophecies. The first or historical division of the book records chiefly the miracles by which the grace of God was magnified in those who remained faithful during years of apostasy, suffering, and banishment. The comfortless condition and utter degeneracy of the nation are seen principally in the second part, the visions and prophetical pictures of which describe the present and immediate future as a period of severe oppression, universal apostasy, and unquestioned supremacy of the world-powers arrayed against God, at the close of which period the Messianic æra of salvation is finally introduced. According to this division the whole consists of two books—one of narratives (chap 1–6), and the other of visions (chap 7–12)—which are about equal in length. This circumstance forms a marked peculiarity of Daniel, as compared with the other prophetical books of the Old Testament, which sometimes interweave the historical element with the prophetical (e.g., Amos, Isa., Jer., etc.), and at others, either reduce the former to narrow limits (e.g., Joel, Micah, Zechariah, etc.), or bring it into such prominence as to exclude the office of the seer (Jonah). This balance between narrative and prophecy, which exists only in Daniel, has its explanation in the origin of the book in a strange land and in a time of exile—circumstances which forbade an arrangement in direct and perfect harmony with the form of prophetical literature in general. These circumstances also serve to account for peculiarities in the language of the book; for its composition, to the extent of about one-half in Hebrew, and the remainder (Daniel 2:4 b. Daniel 7:0) in the Aramæan or Chaldee idiom, which gradually, and as a consequence of the Babylonian captivity and of the Persian supremacy, became the language of the Palestinian Jews, is due solely to its origin, not only in a time of exile, but among the scenes of the exile, and at the court of the barbarous conquerors. The historical book of Ezra, which appeared immediately at the close of the exile, is the only one of the Old-Testament Scriptures which shares this peculiarity of language, while the prophetical books (e.g., Jeremiah, which originated at the time of the exile and when its author was in constant intercourse with the Babylonians), merely contain isolated Aramæan words or paragraphs (see especially Jeremiah 10:11).
The peculiar literary traits and theological contents of this book, especially in its second or prophetical part, likewise find their explanation in its origin among the scenes of the captivity. The prophecies of Daniel, conveyed generally in the form of dreams and visions, and nowhere enforced by inspired addresses or exhortations, and concerning themselves chiefly, if not exclusively, with the fate of the all-controlling world-power, on the one hand, and, on the other, with the final triumph of the Messianic kingdom of God, are thus distinguished from the earlier prophetical writings by peculiarities which mark the book as the pattern for the so-called apocalyptic prophecies. In ordinary prophecies the people of God had usually occupied the foreground of vision, while the world-powers by which they were threatened, were only noticed incidentally, and made the objects of “burdens” or threatening prophecies, as isolated representatives of the spirit that opposes God. Daniel, on the contrary, takes his position in the heart of that world-power, which had overthrown and subjugated all the nations of the East, and among them the chosen race. From this point of vision he foretells the rise of a new world-kingdom, which shall destroy the present empire, to be followed, in turn, by another and still greater power, and so on to the end, when an eternal kingdom of truth and righteousness shall be established on their ruins, by the direct interference of the God of heaven. The result of all earthly development, and the succession of judgments visited on the enemies of God’s people, closing with the Messianic or general judgment, form the subject of this prophecy; and the grandeur of its field of vision, compassing all history and embracing the world, together with the visional clothing of its teaching and the profound symbolism of its eschatological descriptions, constitute the features which stamp it as an apocalypse, in distinction from all earlier prophecy. Within the Old Testament, this form of prophetical writing is approached by the closing chapters of Ezekiel (40–48), but it is directly represented only in the former half of Zechariah (Daniel 1-8), where the model found in Daniel was probably copied. In the New Testament it is found, if we except certain brief sections in the Gospels and Pauline epistles (the eschatological discourse in Matthew 24:25, and parallel passages, and 2 Thessalonians 2:0), only in the Revelation of St. John, which is a direct copy and continuation of the prophecies of Daniel.
These peculiarities, as numerous as they are apparent and significant, explain why the book of Daniel was separated [in the Hebrew Bible] from the other prophets and placed among the Hagiographa, when the Old-Testament canon was formed. Its internal features, consisting in an embrace of all history with an eschatological aim, joined to a visional and symbolical dress, which stamp it as the model of all Biblical (and extra-Biblical or apocryphal) apocalypse, would not of themselves have compelled such a separation; since many of the later prophetical writings display clear transitions in matter and form to the field of apocalypse, and permit the distinction between this ripest fruit of Scriptural prophetical development and prophecy in the narrower sense, to appear as the result of the gradual growth. The decisive reason for the disposition made of this book, must be found in its peculiar division into historical and prophetical parts, and in its composition in Hebrew and Aramaic. This appears with irrefragable certainty from its assignment to a place immediately before Ezra, the only other book in the canon which frames in Chaldee a section of considerable extent between the Hebrew portions of its text.
An additional circumstance, which may have contributed to placing the present book among the Hagiographa, was the [presumed] revision of its prophetical portion, apparently by a pious seer of Maccabæan times, who sought to establish as exact a relation as was possible between the prophecy and its historical fulfillment, as observed by him. This later revision, which affected especially the contents of chapters 10–12, will be considered below, in connection with the question of genuineness and integrity.
Note 1.—With reference to the circumstances of the times—so deplorable in their condition and yet so full of displays of Divine grace and wonderful providences—to which the book of Daniel owes its origin, Hävernick, in the introduction to his commentary (page 16 et seq.), is especially thorough and instructive. He justly disputes the opinion of Winer, de Wette, Leo, (Jüdische Geschichte, p. 183), and others, according to which the situation of the captive Jews was not one of especial hardship. “The shame there inflicted on Israel was not exactly insignificant, when it could inspire pious and faithful men with a holy revenge, and lead them to invoke the Divine indignation on their tormentors! Remember the 137th Psalm and the audacious desecration of the Temple vessels by Belshazzar, as Daniel 5:0. records, which lead to the conclusion that such conduct was of frequent occurrence. Even martyrs to the truth, cheerful and undismayed while testifying that Jehovah alone is God and none beside Him, are revealed in the history of Daniel and his friends (Daniel 3:6); to which event the observation and experience of the wise preacher perhaps refer, when he remarks that ‘there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness’ (Ecclesiastes 7:15).1 When we consider the internal state of the nation in this period, we find further abundant reason for complaint, because of Israel’s sin and misery. Ezekiel addressed the people with earnest censure, because they listened to his words, but refused to obey them, when he condemned their ways (Ezekiel 33:30, sq.), in which they dishonored God among the heathen, and continued to murder, work abomination, and violate chastity, until men asked, ‘Are these the people of the Lord, that are gone forth out of His land?’ (Ezekiel 33:26; Ezekiel 36:20-21; cf. Ezekiel 34:0). Where, indeed, could greater opportunity be found for indulgence in heathen customs by the Israelites, who were at all times excessively addicted to idolatry, than in Babylon, which was notorious as the home of luxury and idolatry? Hence, we must deplore the profound sense of sin, and of being forsaken by God, which is so clearly revealed, not only in the destruction of the temple, and the expulsion of Israel from the holy land, but also in the lack of prophecy (cf. Sam. Daniel 2:9; Psalms 74:9); and which finds its most striking expression in the prayer of Daniel, uttered before the Lord in the name of the people, toward the end of the captivity.2 A different class, who preferred the condition of the exile to the hairy garment of the prophet and the rigorous service of Jehovah, would doubtless enjoy their situation. If there were no other proof of this, it would appear from the fact that many preferred to remain in Babylon at the close of the exile. But the fate of these apostate souls, who, by the Divine decree, were at this exact juncture separated and cast out as dregs from the healthy and pious portion of the nation, was none the less deplorable on that account.”… Further, page 20: “But the wretched and outcast nation was, and still continued to be, the people of His covenant, and, therefore, despite their low estate, the elect and favorite nation of the Lord. They were not merely to continue until the days of their great destiny were fulfilled, but, for Jehovah’s sake, they were to be glorified among the heathen. As, therefore, He had always afforded them miraculous aid in seasons of great tribulation, so extraordinary signs and events, that transcended the ordinary course of nature, now occurred and secured the good of Israel while they alarmed the Gentiles; but at the same time these pointed forward, without exception, to the future realization of the great plan of salvation, whose end is the redemption of sinful man … Prophecies and wonders were the gracious means with which Jehovah overwhelmed Israel and compelled it to abide by Him, but through which, also, the determined apostates who would not turn to God, were finally cut out, so that a purified people, which agreed in confessing Israel’s God at least in outward form, could return to the land of its fathers,” etc.—This view of the time of Daniel and its significance, which is held by orthodox exegetes, with few exceptions (see particularly Auberlen, Der Propliet Daniel, etc., 2d ed., p. 26 et seq.) is rejected by rationalists, inasmuch, as has already been remarked, they do not admit that Israel’s condition during the captivity was especially deplorable and fallen, nor acknowledge the historical character of the narratives respecting the wonderful displays of Divine power and grace, which are recorded in this book. And yet another collection of prophecies, whose origin in the time of the exile and at Babylon is considered by rationalistic critics to be an incontrovertible fact, substantiates the view in question concerning the conditions of the time which underlie our book, in all its bearings, and in many respects, even in its smallest details. The second part of the prophet Isaiah—whether with the modern critics, we consider it as the “Pseudo-Isaiah” or “the exilian Isaiah,” or admit its genuineness and therewith its thoroughly prophetic character—describes the condition of the exiled nation in Babylon, as well as the striking contrast between their religious and national ruin and wickedness, and the miracles by which the grace of God was magnified in them, in precisely the same colors as does the book of Daniel, and therefore serves to establish the authenticity of the contents of this book in an impressive manner. Isaiah’s lamentations because of the turning of many to idolatry (Isaiah 46:6, etc.; Isaiah 57:5, etc.; Isaiah 60:3, etc.); because of unrighteousness, wanton revelry, and violence (Isaiah 56:11; Isaiah 58:2, etc.; Isaiah 59:3, etc); because of the discouragement and lack of faith among even the best of the exiles (Isa 60:27; Isaiah 49:24; Isaiah 51:12, etc.; Isaiah 45:9, etc.) and on account of the rebellious disposition and insolent stubbornness of the masses (Isaiah 48:4; Isaiah 8:10; Isaiah 63:17; Isaiah 64:7, etc.)—all these merely recapitulate in detail what is briefly comprehended in Daniel’s priestly confession and penitential prayer in the affecting language of bitter lamentation.3 Furthermore, the manner in which the deutero-Isaiah refers to the marvellous power and majesty of Jehovah, as revealed in wonderful signs of every sort (Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 45:11), in multitudes of prophecies and promises that have been realized (Isaiah 41:21 et seq.; Isaiah 43:9 et seq.; Isaiah 44:7 et seq.; Isaiah 45:19; Isaiah 45:21; Isaiah 46:10; Isaiah 49:3 et seq.), and in the humiliation and destruction of heathen idols and their worshippers, touches closely upon the corresponding descriptions in both parts of Daniel, the historical as well as the prophetical and symbolical (see especially Daniel 2:47; Daniel 3:28; Daniel 4:31 et seq.; Daniel 6:27 et seq.; Daniel 7:13 et seq.; Daniel 9:24 et seq.). The relations of God’s people to their heathen oppressors and their gods, on the one hand, and to their covenant God, Jehovah, and His displays of grace and promises of deliverance, on the other, are described by both prophets with substantially the same result; and there remains only this difference, that the mode of statement employed lay Isaiah, accords with the older usage of spoken and written prophetical language, while Daniel illustrates the fate of kingdoms in the present and future from a decidedly apocalyptic point of view. The following note treats specifically of this important difference between our prophet and his earlier predecessors.
Note 2.—The relation of Daniel, as the original representative of Scriptural apocalypse, to the earlier prophets, is considered in an especially instructive manner by Auberlen (Der Prophet. Daniel, etc., p. 2 sq.): “The prophets generally occupy an intro-Israelitish standpoint, from whence they view the future of God’s kingdom. The congregation of His people constantly occupies the foreground with them, and the world-powers enter their range of vision only as they interfere in the present or immediate future of God’s people.… The contrary holds with Daniel. Himself separated from the holy land and nation, and living and discharging duty as a high official at the Babylonian and Persian courts, he presents the development of the world-power at the outset as the chief object of his prophecies, and the kingdom of God is relegated significantly to the background. If the other prophets glance occasionally from their post in Zion to the south, the north, or the east, as one or another world-kingdom is presented to their vision, Daniel, from the heart of the world-power, overlooks its entire development, and not until his glance has penetrated through all its changing forms does he rest in Zion, recognizing her affliction and punishment, but also her triumph and exaltation. The prophecies of Daniel no longer relate merely to single and contemporaneous world-kingdoms of greater or less importance; but rather the period of universal monarchies has begun, which rise in succession to universal conquest, and in whose deportment, the worldly principle that opposes the reign of God is revealed in steadily-increasing power and hostility. Intimately connected with this is the further peculiarity of Daniel, that his prophecies contain a much greater wealth of historical and political detail than those of all other prophets. While prophecy generally, viewing the near and the distant in perspective, is accustomed to regard the entire future from an eschatological point of view as the coming of the kingdom of God, Daniel, on the contrary, sees spread before him substantially the future history of the world which must transpire before the advent of the kingdom. Hence results the special form of prophecy which is peculiar to him alone. If this were in any case a history of the future, it would be with so him.” The idea, that the notice in detail of the several features of progress in the future development of the world-power and its relations to God’s people, is a final chief peculiarity of Daniel’s prophecies, is based principally on the contents of Daniel 11:0, which Auberlen regards as written throughout by Daniel and soon after the captivity. We believe ourselves warranted in holding a different view respecting this chapter, which is the chief support for the assumption of a continued series of the most special predictions, and therefore prefer to accept a revision in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, by a pious apocalyptic investigator. Hence we charge the thorough description of the kingdoms of the Seleucidæ down to that tyrant, to the account of the modifying agency of this interpolator. We are not led to this view, either by a preconceived opinion that the Spirit of prophecy is incapable of producing such special predictions, or by a one-sided reference to the analogy of the remaining prophetical books of the Old Testament, which contain no such detailed descriptions of the future; but the decisive circumstance which arouses our suspicion concerning the assumption that Daniel 11:0 is throughout and in all its details a proper prediction, and which even directly forbids it, is the fact that the Revelation of St. John, besides our book the only independent and more comprehensive production of the canonical apocalypse, everywhere presents only ideal pictures of the future. We admit that the prophet, borne by the Spirit of prophecy, would, at the point in question, receive many surprisingly exact disclosures respecting the future history of the God-opposed world-power and its hostility towards the people of God, because we regard Daniel, the “vir desideriorum” (Daniel 10:11), as pre-eminent in zeal and successful effort, among the Old-Testament prophets who, according to 1 Peter 1:11, searched “what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify.” But precisely because he was only a searcher of the future and could be no more than this, we are compelled to reject everything that transforms his prophecy from a Divinely inspired picture of the future into a detailed, and painfully exact history of the future, and we therefore charge this portion to the account of the reviser. Daniel is and remains for us a “prophetic light for the times devoid of revelation, during which Israel was given into the hands of the heathen,” a “light that was designed to illumine the night of five hundred years from the Captivity to Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, for the understanding ones in Israel” (Auberlen, p. 80); but we cannot assume that the clear prophetic light which emanated from him was intended to penetrate to the smallest corners and most gloomy recesses of the history of God’s people which was, for him, yet future.4 But if we can assent to Auberlen’s description of the canonical apocalypses as prophetical disclosures, intended to. “serve the congregation of God’s people as lights during the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24) in which there is no revelation,” only on the condition that we conceive their light in an ideal sense, and as corresponding to the fundamental law in the Divine revelation of gradual and mediate disclosure, we are none the less compelled on the other hand to reject decidedly a special feature, admitted by Lücke, Hilgenfeld, and others, into their conception of the idea of apocalypse, a conception which otherwise conforms approximately to that of Auberlen. We refer to the idea of pseudonymity, concerning which Lücke (Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis und die sogenannte apokalyptische Literatur, 2d ed., p. 47 sq.) asserts that it is necessarily connected with the other two distinguishing features of apocalyptic prophecy, its eschatological, and its comprehensive character that covers all history, since only later writers who cunningly related the prophecies to the past and invented additions to the older prophets, were capable of such all-embracing vision. The one-sidedness and rashness of this assertion likewise appear from the mode of origin and the literary peculiarities of the Revelation by St. John, this most important and significant of apocalypses, against which no more unjust criticism can be offered than that of a pseudonymic origin; and not less from the notorious authenticity of the former half of the book of Zechariah (Daniel 1-8), the remaining apocalyptic composition that has been admitted to the Old-Testament canon, and which may be regarded as the earliest imitation of Daniel. We can yield our assent to the charge of forgery as regards this form of writing, in so far only as it applies to the apocryphal apocalypses, and are therefore in accord with Hilgenfeld (Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 1857, p. 5 sq.)—whose view diverges somewhat from that of Lücke—no further than as he excepts the Johannean apocalypse from the canon of Lücke, which stamps pseudonymity as the invariable mark of apocalyptic literature; but to this exception we add the two apocalypses of the canonical Old Testament.5 For the more special consideration of the relations of Daniel to the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical apocalypses, which were mainly framed on its model, see below, §11.6
Note 3.—With respect to the Chaldaic idiom in Daniel 2-7, which we represented above as a principal reason for leading the framers of the canon to assign to Daniel a place among the Hagiographa, and in the immediate neighborhood of Ezra, we remark in general, (1) that this dialect, which gradually became the current language of the Palestinian Jews, was the eastern-Aramæan or Babylonian, a purely Shemitic idiom, which, as the popular tongue of the Babylonians, must be carefully distinguished from the לְשׁוֹן כַּשְׂדִּים, mentioned in Daniel 1:4, the latter being the court language of Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldæan dynasty, and comprehending numerous Aryan or Turanian elements. This follows from Daniel 2:4; Isaiah 36:11; and Ezra 4:7, where documents and speeches in this dialect are designated as such by the term אֲרָמִית (Luther [and English version]: “Syriac,” rather Aramaic), while the “tongue of the Chaldeans” (ל׳כַּשְׂדִּים) mentioned in Daniel 1:4 is not again referred to, and is clearly distinguished from the ordinary Aramæan language as a peculiar dialect, current among the warrior and priestly caste then dominant in Babylon (possibly identical with those perpetuated in the Assyrio-Babylonish cuneiform inscriptions) by the manner in which it is there introduced; for Daniel and his companions would hardly have been obliged to undergo a regular course of instruction in the common Aramæan or Babylonian language, as it should be called, instead of Chaldee, which is less exact. Compare below, on chapter Daniel 1:4. (2) The Aramæan of chapters 2–7 includes numerous Hebraisms, as the Hebrew of the remaining chapters Chaldaizes many expressions; a circumstance that can hardly be explained, except on the supposition of an intermingling of both dialects in the popular language, which may have begun at the time of the frequent Assyrian invasions, at first among the ten tribes, and later gradually extended also to Judah, and to which the strongly Aramaizing Hebrew of the prophet Ezekiel, most intimately related to the Hebrew of Daniel, bears testimony. (3) The co-existence of the Hebrew and Aramæan, as dialects spoken and understood by the people, is substantiated further by the circumstance that our author could venture to express most of his narratives and predictions in the latter tongue; a feature that is repeated only in the book of Ezra, which was written a century later, while Isaiah (nearly two hundred years before Daniel) admits no Aramaic expressions into his text in a passage which would have afforded a suitable opportunity (Isaiah 36:11; cf. 2 Kings 18:26), and even Jeremiah contents himself with employing a brief Aramaic sentence (Jeremiah 10:11; compare the use of single words in Aram in earlier books, e.g., Genesis 31:47; 2 Kings 5:12). (4) The Aramaic idiom of Daniel corresponds closely to that of the book of Ezra and of Jeremiah 10:11, both in its grammatical and its lexical features. Its wealth of older words (e.g., שְׁפַרְפָּרָח instead of the later שְׁפַר, עֲלוֹהִי for the later עַל־ אֲפֵי, תַּחְתּוֹהי for the later מִלְרָא, שִׂים טְעֵם for the later פָּקִיד, כָּל־קִבֵל-דִּי, for the later אַרֵי עַל כֵּך, נְרָלִי for קִלְקַלְתָה etc.) and its general grammatical peculiarities (where the forms, לְהֹן, לְכֹן instead of the apparently more ancient לְהֹם, לְכֹם, which are found in Ezra, form the only exceptions) create the impression of a much higher antiquity than is represented by the otherwise closely related Chaldee of the Targums, which were composed about the beginning of the Christian æra. (5) Of the seven notorious Parseeisms, or words derived from the Persian, which are found in the Aramaic portion of our book, only אַזְדָּא occurs in the Targums, while it has two others (פִּתְגַּם and פַּיְתְּמִים) in common with the Chaldaizing Hebrew of the book of Esther and the Chaldee of Ezra, and a fourth (גִּזְבַר) occurs at least in the Chald. Ezra. There is thus in this respect also a more remarkable lingual relationship between Daniel and Ezra, than between them and the Chaldee Targums, and the position assigned to our book between Esther and Ezra on the forming of the canon, is fully justified by this consideration. We shall endeavor to show, in connection with the question of genuineness, that the weight of these lingual peculiarities, which point so decisively to the composition of this book during the period immediately preceding and following the captivity, is in no wise diminished by the occurrence in its Chaldee text of several phrases evidently derived from the Greek. We were only concerned in this connection, to show that the lingual peculiarities of the book formed a principal motive for its collocation with the Hagiographa, instead of its being placed in the series of prophetical books. Compare Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des Daniel, etc., p. 297 sq.; Hävernick, Einleitung ins A. T., II. 2, 482 et seq.; Zündel, Kritische Untersuchungen über die. Abfassungszit des Buches Daniel, p. 239 et seq. Concerning its place after Esther and before Ezra, compare in addition, Delitzsch, Art. “Daniel,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., III. Dan 272: “The book of Daniel stands between Esther and Ezra, because Esther, for a sufficient reason, is the last of the five Megilloth (festival volumes), and because the principal contents of Daniel belong to the time before Ezra and Nehemiah.” Accordingly, this book was regarded as belonging among the historical Hagiographa (in view of its really historical character throughout the first half), and it was placed at the head of these books, because of its lingual relationship with Ezra, and also because of its pre-eminently holy and inspired character. This arrangement is not chronological, indeed, for in this respect the Chronicles should precede, and Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther follow in their order. But considerations of a different nature prevailed, on the whole, in the collocation of these final constituents of the Old-Testament canon. The following section will illustrate one of the leading considerations which enable us, definitely to understand the position of this book, in connection with its remarks on the call of Daniel to the prophetic office.
§ 2. The Personal Relations of the Prophet
The name Daniel (דָּנִיּאֵל, Daniel 1:6; also defective, דָּנִאֵל in Ezekiel 14:14; Ezekiel 14:20; Ezekiel 28:3), which signifies “judge of God, judge who pronounces judgment in the name of God,”7 belongs to two persons besides our prophet in Old-Testament history, of whom one was a son of David (1 Chronicles 3:1), and the other a Levite of the house of Ithamar. The latter flourished but little later than our prophet, according to Ezra 8:2; Nehemiah 10:7, and has, on that account, been identified with him by the Septuagint in the apocryphal additions to the book of Daniel, as well as by several recent critics. The difference in time is, however, too considerable to admit of this opinion; and the fact that among the contemporaries of the priest Daniel were found a Mishael (Nehemiah 8:4), Hananiah, and Azariah (Nehemiah 10:3; Nehemiah 10:24), must be regarded as a mere accident, from which, in view of the notorious frequency of these names, the conclusion cannot be drawn, that the Daniel of our book, together with his three pious associates, are the creatures of a fictitious collocation and pre-dating of those persons, who lived almost a century later (compare the arguments against Bleek in note 1).
According to chapter Daniel 1:3, Daniel seems to have been of royal descent, and therefore born at Jerusalem. The passage in chapter Daniel 9:24, however, will hardly serve in proof of this (Harenberg and other expositors), since Jerusalem might have been termed the “holy city” by Daniel, even if he belonged to any other city or tribe of the holy land,8 He was, at any rate, of high birth, and, together with three other noble Jewish youths, was in early life transported to Babylon in the first deportation under Jehoiakim, in order to become, a page at the Chaldæan court.9 Here their Hebrew names were changed for others of Chaldæan origin, and Hananiah received the name of Shadrach, Mishael that of Meshach, and Azariah that of Abednego, while Daniel was known as Belteshazzar (בֵּלְטְשַׁאצּר). This name, if explained solely according to the Shemitic analogy, seems to be synonymous with “Beli princeps,” or “princeps, cui Belus favet” (בֵּלְשַׁאצַּר), and therefore likewise indicates the princely rank of Daniel. That he bore in addition the probably Persian name of Sheshbazzar, by which Zerubbabel was known at the court of Cyrus (Ezra 1:8), rests on an unsupported Rabbinical tradition, which is found in Rashi and several later writers, and which seems to have grown out of a false etymological interpretation of שׁשׁבצר as=“who was in six-fold tribulation.”
The instruction in the wisdom of the Chaldee magians and in the manners of the court, which Daniel received in Babylon under the supervision of the chief eunuch, Ashpenaz, did not prevent him from observing the injunctions of the Mosaic law in regard to food and drink, with conscientious care, and from astonishing the officials who had him in charge by the almost miraculous effects produced in his appearance through this ascetic course, in which his three friends participated (Daniel 1:8-10). But marked as were these effects of his piety, his fame was increased still further by the extraordinary proofs of his prudence, wisdom, and learning, which he manifested at an early period, especially in the interpretation of dreams, visions, etc. This extended his reputation beyond the bounds of Babylon before he had attained maturity, and must even have made his name proverbial among his countrymen at least, as designating a marvel of Wisdom 10 Only thus can we explain the fact that Ezekiel, his contemporary, although considerably older in years, refers to Daniel in several passages of his prophecies (which were brought to a close in B. C. 572, that is, about the middle of the captivity), as a model of pious wisdom, and in two instances classes him with Noah and Job, the great wise men of antiquity (Ezekiel 14:14, 28; Ezekiel 28:3; compare note 2).
That Daniel was not merely trained under the oversight of the chief eunuch, or chief palace official (“prince of the eunuchs”) of Nebuchadnezzar, but also himself became a eunuch in the proper sense, and was trained in that capacity, is an ancient Jewish tradition, which appears to rest on a combination of Daniel 1:3 et seq. with the prophecy of Isaiah to Hezekiah (Isaiah 39:7, where סריסים was held to designate actual eunuchs). It is, however, without any historical support, either in the book of Daniel itself, or in other Old-Testament records; and Ezekiel 14:20 seems even to directly contradict this tradition, since it ascribes sons and daughters to him, as it does also to Noah and Job. But it could not be otherwise than welcome to the ascetically disposed Jews of later times, as well as to many church fathers and Roman Catholic expositors, to discover in Daniel a eunuch, even though an involuntary one, and an example of perpetual virginity. Hence the Targums report this tradition (on Esther 4:5, in connection with the mention of Hatach, the Persian eunuch who was appointed to serve Esther), as do others of the more ancient rabbins (Pseudo-Epiphanius, Vitœ Prophet., c. 10, ἦν�). Of later rabbins, e.g., Rashi ad Daniel 1:21 (but not Ibn-Ezra, ad Daniel 1:3); of church fathers, Origen (Hom. IV in Ezech.), Jerome (Adv. Jovin. Daniel 1:1; Comm. in Jes. 39:7; in Daniel 1:3), John Damascenus (De fide orthod. iv. 25); of later Roman Catholics, Cornelius à Lapide, Huetius, and others, hold to this tradition. [It is also strongly confirmed by the well-known usages of Oriental courts, in which eunuchs are admitted to privileges allowed to none others, especially in personal offices near the king. Haman, indeed, was not of this class in the book of Ezra, but Nehemiah was doubtless such in the Persian court. In the light of this circumstance, the dietetic regimen imposed upon Daniel and his three companions had a sanitary reason, and their voluntary temperance may actually have had a good effect during their period of convalescence after the operation. The reference to Daniel in Ezekiel does not so explicitly allude to children as to invalidate this conclusion, being merely an implication of kindred.]
After three years of training and instruction, in which early period the apocryphal narrative in the interpolated Daniel of the Septuagint places the celebrated decision in favor of Susannah, who was unjustly condemned to death, as an instance of the extraordinary wisdom of the youthful prophet, Daniel and his three companions entered on their duties at the court of Nebuchadnezzar.11 Through the miraculous aid of the enlightening grace of God, he was enabled to interpret a remarkable dream of the king, in consequence of which he was promoted to the royal favor, as was Joseph at the court of Pharaoh, until he became the most influential official in the province of Babylonia, and chief of the caste of magians (Daniel 2:48 et seq.). He appears to have occupied this important position until the close of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, although the narrative of the persecution of Daniel’s friends and fellow-worshippers, contained in Daniel 3:0, and that of his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s second dream and of the madness of that king, which is found in Daniel 4:0, warrant the opinion that his glory was not without an occasional but transitory eclipse in the course of that protracted period.
Under Belshazzar, the son and (possibly not immediate, but rather third or fourth) successor of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel regained the royal favor and influential position of which he had been temporarily deprived. After having been entirely forgotten, he succeeded in interpreting an extraordinary appearance which had alarmed the king, but the prophetic meaning of which, relating to his approaching overthrow by the Persian world-power, none of the magians were able to reveal. The great honors with which Belshazzar rewarded him immediately before his fall (enrobing in purple, placing a chain of gold about his neck, and proclaiming him the third ruler in the kingdom) remained to him under the first Medo-Persian ruler, Darius the Mede (Cyaxeres). This monarch appointed him one of the three princes who were placed over all the one hundred and twenty governors of his kingdom; and he even thought to place him over his whole realm (as minister of state or grand-vizier) Daniel 6:1-4. For this reason, the other princes and governors, moved with envy, sought to destroy Daniel by bringing his steadfast adherence to the faith of his fathers into conflict with the established religion of Persia, or rather with an extraordinary decree of the king, which provided that during the space of one month the honor of Divine worship should be rendered only to him, the ruler of the kingdom. As Daniel persisted in the regular discharge of his religious duties, and, according to the custom of pious Jews, offered prayer at an open window, and with his face turned toward Jerusalem, three times in each day, he became subject to the fearful penalty imposed by the king, of being devoured by lions. The wondrous care of God, however, preserved him unharmed through the night which he spent in their den, and, in consequence, he rose still higher in the favor of the king, while his accusers were thrown into the den, and perished by the death they had designed for him. When Cyrus assumed the sole government over the Medo-Persian world-kingdom, after the two years reign of Darius the Mede, the dignities and honors of Daniel were continued to him. He therefore survived the expiration of the Babylonian Captivity and the beginning of Israel’s return to the holy land (see Daniel 1:21), which ensued on the accession of that king, “the anointed of the Lord” (Isaiah 45:1); and although the book of his prophecies records nothing of his agency in restoring his people to their land, his indirect influence was probably not unimportant. The closing series of his prophecies (Daniel 10-12) which disclose the future history of Israel down to the erection of Messiah’s kingdom on the ruins of the world-powers, testify that in spirit he cherished a warm sympathy for the physical and moral welfare of his people.
He died probably soon after receiving and recording these final revelations, which he himself places in the third year of the reign of Cyrus; but when, and under what circumstances, his death occurred is unknown. The attempts to state his circumstances at the close of life, together with the time and manner of his death, which are found in Jewish and Arabic authors, and also in church fathers, are based on empty traditions which are wholly without support. We class among these the statement of Josephus (Antiq. Jud. X. 11, 7) that Daniel immortalized himself as early as the reign of Darius the Mede by building a splendid royal castle of marble at Ecbatana, which was still standing and in the charge of a Jewish priest in the time of Josephus;12 also the Jewish-oriental legend, perhaps derived from Daniel 1:21, and Ezra 8:2, concerning his return to Palestine among the first exiles under Zerubbabel (D’Herbelot, Bibl. Orient., p. 288); further, the statement of Pseudo-Epiphanius, that he died at Babylon and was buried in the royal tomb; the statement, perhaps, of later origin, but more widely circulated than the one last mentioned, which is held by Abdul-faraj and Benj. of Tudela, that he died in Shushan—a tradition upon which rests the still practised adoration of the reputed tomb of the prophet in that city, in which Jews and Christians are said to participate, as well as Moslems (see Ausland, 1853, p. 600); and finally the Romish tradition, which is to the effect that Daniel died as a martyr, and which commemorates him on the 21st of July (cf. Stadler and Heim, Vollst. Heiligen-Lexikon, vol. 1, p. 722 ss.).
The above historical notices concerning Daniel show, that by reason of his relations to the Babylonian, and later to the Medo-Persian dynasties, as well as on account of his growth to maturity and continued dwelling and labors in a foreign land, he occupies an entirety exceptional position among the Old-Testament prophets—a position that makes it seem really doubtful whether the prophetic office was his proper and chief vocation. In any case, he appears as much a Chaldæan wise man as an Israelitish prophet, and thus intervenes between the Old-Testament prophetism and the position of the Divinely enlightened seers among the nations that bordered on Israel, who were supernaturally chosen to be the bearers of Messianic prophecies, as in the case of Balaam in the time of Moses, and the Eastern magi on the threshold of New-Testament times. For this reason chiefly, it would seem, he was regarded by the framers of the canon as not belonging to the class of prophets in the narrower sense, but as more directly included among the writers of the Hagiographa (compare note 3).
Note 1.—Bleek, in Einleitung ins A. Test., 2d ed., p. 010, remarks with reference to the persons mentioned in Ezra 8:2, and Nehemiah 8:4; Nehemiah 10:3; Nehemiah 10:7; Nehemiah 10:24, under the names of Daniel, Mishael, Hananiah, and Azariah: “This coincidence of names with those of the heroic believers represented in our book may be accidental, but nevertheless is remarkable, since it exists with reference to the entire four, and the names Daniel and Michael occur but rarely elsewhere. The time, indeed, in which the four contemporaries of Ezra and Nehemiah flourished is later than that of Daniel and his friends, as about 160 years elapsed between the third year of Jehoiakim and the reading of the book of the law by Ezra; but still, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the composer of this book (who, according to Bleek, lived and wrote in the time of the Maccabees, about B. C. 167) borrowed the names of his faithful heroes from those four men. We cannot tell whether a more intimate acquaintance with their history and experience in Babylon led him to select their names.” (Similarly De Wette, Einleitung ins A. T., p. 360 et seq.) To us the supposition of Bleek seems about as vague a combination as the familiar attempts of Strauss to find in the names of Gospel history, Jacob, Joseph, Mary, and Elizabeth, mythical reproductions of the corresponding names in the primitive Scripture history, or to find the origin of the historical Lazarus in the Gospel of St. John, in the purely imaginary person of this name in the parabolical narrative found in Luke 16:19 et seq. (Leben Jesu, etc., 1804, p. 477 et seq.). The impossibility of identifying the four contemporaries of Ezra with our prophet and his friends appears from (1) the fact that, according to Daniel 1:21, which passage could not possibly have been known to the mythical writer, Daniel lived only to the beginning of the reign of Cyrus; (2) that the names Azariah, Daniel, and Hananiah, which are enumerated in Nehemiah 10:2-28, among the great number of names of leaders, priests, and Levites, who engaged to observe the law, became so unimportant and are so widely separated that only the most reckless arbitrariness or chance could associate them precisely as intimate companions, who filled a distinguished position at the royal court of Babylon as wise men and confessors; (3) that the name Mishael (Nehemiah 8:4), in the list of those who stood on the left hand of Ezra while he read the law, occupies a no less isolated position; (4) that the identity of Daniel, of the sons of Ithamar, who is mentioned in Ezra 8:2, with the priest or Levite of the same name, who is noticed in Nehemiah 10:7, is, at any rate, extremely doubtful, since their surroundings are wholly dissimilar; (5) that what is recorded in Daniel 1:3, particularly the report concerning the Babylonian names conferred on them (Daniel 1:7) bears too thoroughly the stamp of historical reminiscence to admit of the hypothesis of a later invention, for the purpose of exalting those obscure names, which were almost forgotten among the number of names in the book of Nehemiah.
Note 2.—The three-fold reference of Ezekiel to Daniel has been regarded by many modern critics as irreconcilable with the historical existence of a magian and prophet of this name, since in two instances (Ezekiel 14:14; Ezekiel 14:20) Ezekiel places Daniel between Noah and Job, and since he clearly seems to treat him as a personage belonging to the earliest antiquity in those passages as well as in Ezekiel 28:3. On this account, they have either questioned the genuineness of these passages in Ezekiel (e.g., Bernstein, in Tzschirner’s Analekten, Daniel 1:3, p. 10), or given up the historical character of the exilian Daniel, and considered him a purely poetic invention like Job, or a wise man belonging to the patriarchal or primitive period of Israelitish history. The latter hypothesis especially has been received with favor, and has been variously developed by Bleek, Hitzig, Ewald, and Bunsen. According to Bleek (in Schleierm. n. Lücke’s Theolgischer Zeitschrift, III. 1822, p. 283 et seq., and in Einl. ins A. T., p. 608 et seq.), we are not led by the manner in which he is mentioned to think of a person who shared in the Babylonian captivity with Ezekiel, but much rather, to conceive of a long-familiar personage of primitive times, who was historically connected with events in the experience of Israel, or, which is more probable, since we know no more concerning him, who was like Job, a mere product of the poetic fancy. From the manner in which Ezekiel refers to him, it is barely conceivable that he should have been, as the Daniel of our book is represented, a Jewish exile and contemporary with Ezekiel.” De Wette (Einl. ins A. T., p. 361) and Von Lengerke (Das Buch Daniel ausgel., p. 93 et seq.) likewise limit the choice to either a “man belonging to the gray antiquity” or to a purely imaginary personage. Hitzig, on the other hand, regards the Daniel of Ezekiel 14:0 as not, indeed, created by the writer, like Job, but still as the “child of tradition” like Noah and Melchizedek, and finds an intimate correspondence, amounting almost to identity, of our Daniel with the mysterious royal and priestly personage of the latter, who is assumed to be a junior contemporary of Noah—a relation which exists especially in respect of his name (דנראל, “divine judge,” nearly synonymous with, מלכרצדק, “king of righteousness.” Kurzgef. exeget. Handbuch zu Daniel, p. 8). Ewald, again (Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, vol. II. Appendix, p. 562 et seq), considers the Daniel mentioned by Ezekiel as having been descended from one of the ten tribes, and as having lived and prophesied at the heathen court of Nineveh, a hundred years before the Babylonian Captivity. To this participator in the Assyrian captivity were attributed prophetic oracles respecting the world-kingdoms, by an unknown Jewish author of the times of Alexander the Great or the earliest Seleucidæ, which were modified by a later writer, in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, from whom they received their present form. Bunsen (Gott in der Geschichte, I. 514 et seq.) agrees in the main with the first part of this hypothesis. The historical Daniel lived at the royal court in Nineveh soon after the deportation of the Israelites by Shalmaneser; the fantastic representations of animals on the palaces of Nimrud and Khorsabad, which have become known to us through the researches of Botta and Layard, served as models for his visional descriptions of the world-kingdoms under the form of various imaginary animals, in chapters 7 and 8; and the originator of the present book transformed the prophet of Nineveh by mistake into a Babylonian. Compare below, § 4, note 1. Two earlier opponents of the genuineness of this book, Bertholdt and Kirmss, endorse the opinion of Ewald and Bunsen, that Daniel was a real person of historical times; but instead of assigning this wise man, whom Ezekiel celebrates, to an earlier age, they make him the contemporary of that prophet, living at the court of Babylon. The author of this book, who belonged to a much later period, and derived his entire knowledge of Daniel from Ezekiel, merely clothed him in a mythical dress, etc. (Bertholdt, Daniel, etc., I. p. 7; Einleit. ins A. T., p. 1506; Kirmss, Commentatio historico-critica exhibens descriptionem et censuram recentiorum de Daniel libro opinionum, Jen. 1828, p. 59 et seq.); in like manner also Winer in the Realwörterb., Art. “Daniel” (1, p. 247).
The more recent defenders of the genuineness of Daniel’s prophecies are in immediate correspondence with the arguments raised by these latter critics in support of the possibility of Daniel’s contemporary existence with Ezekiel, despite the peculiar manner in which he is mentioned in Ezekiel 14, 28. Hengstenberg especially (Die Authentie des Daniel, p. 70 et seq.) shows in a most discerning way that the chronological difficulty is of no importance, since Daniel must have been thirty years old when Ezekiel 14:0 was composed, and since the rewards and honors conferred on him by Nebuchadnezzar must have been received at least ten years before that period; and further, that the book of Daniel itself (in such passages as Daniel 1:17; Daniel 1:20; Daniel 2:47; Daniel 4:5; Daniel 5:11) testifies to the extraordinary and early-developed wisdom, by which this pious youth was distinguished, and with reference to which Ezekiel was already enabled to point the contemporary king of Tyre to him as a model of exalted wisdom and Divine illumination (Ezekiel 28:3). The position assigned to Daniel between Noah and Job in Ezekiel 14:14; Ezekiel 14:20, proves nothing whatever concerning his patriarchal age; rather, Job is placed at the end of the series because he was a less suitable example for the immediate purpose of Ezekiel, than Noah and Daniel, the preachers of righteousness in the midst of a godless world. In general agreement with this view of Hengstenberg are, Hävernick (Komm. zu Ezechiel, p. 206 et seq.; Neue Untersuchungen über Daniel, p. 23 et seq.; Einl. ins A. T., 2:2, 455), Kliefoth (Das Buch Ezechiels übersetzt und erklürt, p. 177 et seq.; and Das Buch Daniels, p. 31 et seq.), Delitzsch (in Herzog’s Real-Encykl., s. v. Daniel), and Zündel (Krit. Untersuchungen, etc., p. 258 et seq.). These later apologists, however, justly declare Hengstenberg’s explanation of the circumstance that Daniel is placed between Noah and Job to be inadequate, and therefore endeavor to find a more appropriate explanation of this fact, which at the first blush seems so strange. Hävernick and Kliefoth assume a climax: “Noah saved himself and his family; Daniel was still able to provide for his friends, Daniel 2:17-18; Job, despite his uprightness, could not even save his children.” Delitzsch explains the arrangement of names by assuming that Ezekiel “mentions first a righteous man belonging to the ancient world, next, a righteous man belonging to the present world, and lastly, a righteous man who belongs to the ideal world;” for Job is “presented to the eyes of Israel as a righteous man only in the book of Job, which, although not without a historical basis, is not historical, but rather poetical and didactic.” Finally, Zündel seeks to explain this arrangement of names by the observation, that Daniel occupied a “thoroughly analogous central and universal position among his contemporaries,” so to speak, as a mediator between God and His people, by virtue of which, as formerly did Noah and Job, he presented his uprightness and piety before God, in a reconciling and atoning way, when His anger was aroused because of the sins of His people. None of these attempts at explanation are entirely satisfactory to us; but that of Delitzsch seems to be the most adequate and plausible, because the most simple and unconstrained. But may not euphonic considerations have contributed to the arrangement of the three names נח, דניאל and איוב, in like manner as such considerations appear to have prevailed in other enumerations of proper names? e.g., of the three sons of Noah (Genesis 6:9; Genesis 9:18, etc.), among which Ham, although the youngest of the three, is always placed before Japheth; of the three daughters of Job (Job 42:14), etc. As examples of the neglect of chronological order in the enumeration of names, compare, in addition, Eccles., Daniel 49, where Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zerubbabel, Joshua, and Nehemiah (vs. 16–20) are placed before Enoch, Joseph, Seth, Shem, and Adam; also Hebrews 11:32 (Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel); Jude 1:5:9 et seq. (Moses, Cain, Balaam, Korah, Enoch); Matthew 16:14 (John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah). The last of these examples is especially instructive, since it shows that living persons might be classed with persons of similar character belonging to the earliest antiquity without any regard to chronological sequence. [The fact that Daniel is thus associated by Ezekiel, a nearly contemporary writer, with an undoubtedly historical personage, Noah, has always been held to be a strong proof of his actual existence. The same holds true of Job, as mentioned in the same connection. Compare James 5:11. Indeed, the introduction of a purely mythical name in such a matter-of-fact connection would be irrelevant and nugatory.]
Note 3.—On the peculiarity of the prophetic character of Daniel, as constituting a principal reason for referring this book among the Hagiographa, see Delitzsch, p. Dan 272: “The book of Daniel was placed among the Hagiographa, because he was not a prophet by virtue of his office and calling, although, like David and Solomon, he possessed the gift of prophecy.” Origen remarks correctly: “Non si quis prophetat, ideo propheta est. Ac profecto si quis propheta est, is quidem prophetat, sed vero qui prophetat, non continue etiam est propheta.” The genuineness of the book is therefore not compromised by its position among the Hagiographa.13 Compare also Auberlen, Daniel, p. 30 et seq.: “We may also refer to his instruction in the wisdom of the Chaldæan Magi; for the Holy Scriptures show that the mysterious knowledge and arts of the heathen were not an empty boast, e.g., in the case of the Egyptian sorcerers who opposed Moses. The wise men who were led by the star to seek after the new-born king of the Jews, were such Chaldee Magians, which clearly shows that they were not deprived of all truth, and in connection with which we may even inquire whether a tradition may not have been transmitted among them which had emanated from Daniel, their chief, who had received such remarkable disclosures concerning this king of the Jews, reaching even to the time of his appearing? The circumstance, that in his youth he was instructed during three years in this wisdom of the Chaldæans, doubtless had the effect on the prophet himself, to develop the prophetic tendency which was natural to him, and to make him at home in these mysterious regions (Daniel 1:4-5; Daniel 1:17). It must have afforded him an education similar to that which Moses derived from his training at the Egyptian court, or that drawn by the modern theologian from the study of philosophy. He learned, however, nothing of importance from the Chaldæans, but rather soon excelled them all ten-fold in wisdom.” Further, compare the same, page 34 et seq., where, conforming to the Rabbins, the isolated position of Daniel, the apocalyptist, among the other Old-Testament prophets, is explained and interpreted to mean that while he did not possess the רוּחַ נְבוּאָה or proper prophetic Spirit, he nevertheless partook of the רוּחַ הַקֹדֶשׁ or “Holy Spirit,” which was shared also by the remaining writers of the Hagiographa, for which reason his proper place was among this class, and not among the prophets. Compare also the definitions which are quoted in that connection from Witsius (Daniel was endowed with the gift of prophecy indeed, but not with the prophetic office); from Bengel (Daniel was “the politician, chronologer, and historian among the prophets”); and from M. Baumgarton (Daniel was “the official seer of Jehovah in the world-kingdom”).—See infra, § 6, note 1.
§ 3 Contents and Form of Daniel’s Prophecies
The first or historical division (Daniel 1-6) of the two which compose our book according to § 1, p. 1, has already, so far as its principal features are concerned, been analyzed in the preceding paragraph, which narrates the leading events of the prophet’s life in exact chronological order. The second or prophetical division (Daniel 7-12) contains the prophetic elements of the book, but not so exclusively as not to interweave occasional historical and biographical notices with its predictions (see especially the mention of Daniel’s illness, Daniel 8:27; of his fasting, mourning, and prayer, Daniel 9:1 et seq.; Daniel 10:2 et seq.; of his visions on the banks of the Tigris, Daniel 10:4 et seq.; Daniel 7:5). Nor are prophecies entirely wanting in the historical division; for besides the interpretation of the dream relating to the lycanthropy of Nebuchadnezzar (in Daniel 4:10-24), which is equivalent to an actual prophecy or special prophetical prediction, and also besides the interpretation of the mysterious writing on the wall of Belshazzar’s banquet-hall, which likewise testifies to Daniel’s prophetic endowments (Daniel 5:17-28), the leading features of the narrative in chapter 2, relating to the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s first dream by Daniel, form a prophecy of the specifically apocalyptic kind in their reference to the history of kingdoms and of the world. The great image composed of gold, silver, brass, iron, and clay, the so-called image of the monarchies, together with the stone that destroys it, which were seen by Nebuchadnezzar in his dream, and afterward by the prophet, in a night vision, were interpreted by Daniel by virtue of Divine inspiration, to signify a succession of world-kingdoms that should precede the kingdom of Messiah or of God, commencing with the reign of Nebuchadnezzar himself. The golden head of the image represented the existing kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar with its exalted power and greatness. Upon it should follow a second and inferior kingdom, and a third, that should bear rule over all the earth with the power and hardness of brass; afterwards a fourth, strong as iron, which should crush and destroy all things; and finally a divided kingdom, partly of iron and partly of clay, i.e., partly strong and partly brittle, which, though seeking to combine its several parts, should yet fail to develop into a united whole. In the time of this divided kingdom, God Himself would establish a kingdom on the earth, which, like the destroying stone, should overturn and crush all the world-kingdoms in order to flourish on their ruins forever (Daniel 2:37-45).14
This prophecy, which is interwoven with the first or historical part, is closely related to the first prediction of the prophetical part (Daniel 7:0), and indeed is identical with it in purport. This latter prophecy is also a dream-vision with a succeeding Divinely-disclosed interpretation, but revealed originally and solely to Daniel. The succession of the four world-kingdoms which began with that of Nebuchadnezzar, is in this instance represented by four beasts which rise in succession from the sea: a lion with eagle’s wings and the heart of a man, a bear with three ribs in its ravenous jaws, a leopard with four wings and four heads, and a fourth terrible monster, with iron teeth and ten horns, three of which were plucked up by the roots, and replaced by “another little horn” with human eyes and a mouth that spoke presumptuous blasphemies (Daniel 7:2-8). The fourth of these kingdoms is now described somewhat differently, and more particularly, as a fearful reign of tyranny, which devoured the earth and destroyed and ruined all things, and from which should proceed in succession ten kings, who are symbolized by the ten horns. Three of these kings are to be superseded by the final monarch, who is represented by the “little horn,” and whose, madness and blasphemous presumption exceed that of all who have preceded him, so that he speaks blasphemy against the Highest, makes war upon the saints of God, and aims to set aside the law and the holy seasons. The sufferings of the people of God at the hands of this tyrant are limited to three and a half years, at the end of which Divine judgments shall be visited on him through one like the Son of man, who comes with the clouds of heaven, and to whom is committed an everlasting dominion over all nations.
The second prophecy of the second part (Daniel 8:0) also stands connected in its subject and purport with the image of the monarchies, whose middle and lower parts it develops and illustrates more fully. Under the figure of a contest between a ram and a he-goat, it describes the overthrow of the third by the fourth world-kingdom, together with succeeding events down to the Messianic judgment. A ram with two horns, of which the taller appeared last, pushes fiercely towards the four quarters of the earth, until a he-goat with a notable horn, coming from the west, smites him to the ground, and breaks his two horns. Next, the great horn of the victorious goat is broken, and replaced by four other notable ones, toward the four winds of heaven. Out of one of these comes forth a little horn, which increases mightily toward the south, the east, and Judæa, grows even to the host of heaven and its prince, desecrates the sanctuary, and interrupts the offering of the daily sacrifice during a period of 2,300 evenings and mornings (i.e. 1,150 days, or three and a half years), Daniel 8:3-14. The angel Gabriel interprets this vision to the prophet, and applies it to the Medo-Persian empire, which should be overthrown by the fourth world-power, founded by the king of Græcia (Alexander the Great), and also to the four more important kingdoms of the Diadochi, which should arise out of the Greek world-monarchy, on the early death of its founder. One of these latter kingdoms (that of the Seleucidæ) should become especially hurtful to the people of God and His sanctuary, through the craft and audacity of one of its rulers, until finally the breaking of this offender “without hand,” i.e., by the interference of a superior power should come to pass. [For a comparative table of all these prophecies see § 10, Note 3; and for a refutation of the “year-day” hypothesis on which the application of the fourth kingdom exclusively to Papal Rome rests, see § 10, Note 4.]
A third vision (Daniel 9:0) is vouchsafed to the prophet in connection with his meditating on the meaning of the seventy years, which Jeremiah had predicted should elapse before the rebuilding of Jerusalem. While addressing Jehovah in fervent penitential prayer, in connection with his meditations, and beseeching Him to forgive the sins of His people, and to turn away His fury from Jerusalem (Daniel 9:3-19), the angel Gabriel discloses to him the meaning of Jeremiah’s prophecy. The seventy years are to be understood as seventy weeks of years. Four hundred and ninety years were determined, in order to atone fully for the sins of the people, and to reanoint the Most Holy of His temple. The first seven of the seventy weeks of years were to include the period between the utterance of Jeremiah’s prophecy and the “anointed prince” (Cyrus); in the course of the sixty-two weeks of years that should follow, the city (Jerusalem) was to be rebuilt, but in troublous times. The last, or seventieth, week of years should begin with the “cutting off of an anointed one,” after which the people and their sanctuary were to be devastated by the armies of a tyrant, and the customary offering of the sacred sacrifices and oblations to be interrupted during the half of a week (evidently during the latter half of this final week of years), until, in the end, ruin should overtake the destroyer15 (Daniel 9:21-27).
The final vision (Daniel 10-12) contains the most thorough and detailed description of the developments of the future. After three weeks of fasting and mourning, an angel, whose clothing and appearance were wonderful (Daniel 10:5-11), appeared to the prophet on the banks of the Tigris, and gave him an account of the contests which he was compelled to enter into with the “princes,” or angelical protectors of Persia and Græcia, and in which he was aided only by Michael, the angel of God’s people (Daniel 10:12 to Daniel 11:1). To this account lie added a representation, full of life and minute detail, of the immediate future, and extending to the time of the tyrannical oppressor of God’s people, who has already been frequently described. In this connection he dwells especially upon the conflicts of the kings of a southern kingdom (Egypt) and a northern kingdom (Syria), which were to constitute the principal states that should arise from the ruins of the fourth (Greel or Macedonian) world-power (Daniel 11:2-20), and more than all, on the insolent, audacious, and blasphemous deportment of the last king of the northern realm, who should ultimately come to a terrible end, after inflicting the most horrible abominations on the holy nation, their sacred city, and its sanctuary (Daniel 11:21-45). After unparallelled tribulation and affliction, deliverance and salvation should come to Daniel’s nation, in connection with the resurrection of the dead, which should lead to the exaltation of the righteous, but consign the ungodly to everlasting punishment (Daniel 12:1-3).16 After the angel has directed the prophet to seal the prophecy to the time of the end (Daniel 12:4), he supplements it by a final revelation in regard to the duration of the period of severe affliction before the introduction of Messiah’s kingdom, which is fixed at 1,290, or, conditionally, at 1,335 days (Daniel 12:7-12). The whole closes with the counsel of the angel to the prophet, to wait patiently until the end of all things, and until his resurrection to eternal life.
The arrangement of the four prophecies of the second part is strictly chronological, so that the order of their succession is parallel with that of the actual events in Daniel’s life, as recorded in the first part. The first vision appeared to him “in the first year of Belshazzar” the king, in the form of a dream, which he at once recorded in writing (Daniel 7:1); the second, in the third year of the same reign, “in the palace of Shushan, in the province of Elam, by the river of Ulai,”—where the prophet in his exaltation at least believed himself to be (Daniel 8:1-2); the third, in the first year of the reign of Darius the Mode, hence soon after the overthrow of Belshazzar (Daniel 9:1-2; cf. Daniel 5:30; Daniel 6:1); and the fourth, “in the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia,” on the 24th day of the first month, while the prophet was on the banks of the Tigris, after completing his fast of three weeks (Daniel 5:1-4; cf. Daniel 12:5-6). The first vision is included in the Aramaic portion of the book; the three others, like Daniel 1:0 and the opening verses of Daniel 2:0 (Daniel 2:1-4 a), are recorded in Hebrew.
In a formal point of view, the marked difference between the prophecies of the second part and those of the first is to be noticed, namely, that in the latter instance the interpretation of the wonderful and prophetic appearance of the vision in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2:0), and of the mysterious writing, Mene, Mene, Tekel, etc., at the banquet of Belshazzar (Daniel 5:0), was imparted to the prophet immediately through the Divine Spirit, and without the agency of angels; while in each of the four prophecies of the second part angels are employed, either to reveal the purport of the visions seen by Daniel while awake or dreaming (as in the case of the first two, Daniel 7:8), or to convey direct disclosures relating to the future, without any previous symbolical vision (as with the final prophecies, Daniel 9:10-12). The prophet, however, is the only narrator, even when he recapitulates (as is the case especially in Daniel 10:20 to Daniel 12:4) the extended remarks of the angel, his celestial teachers and interpreters. The epistolary form of narration which occurs once in the first part, Daniel 3:31–4:34 (but which is not rigidly adhered to in that connection, since Nebuchadnezzar, the writer of the letter under our notice, is referred to in the third person, in Daniel 4:25-30), is not found in the second part.
Note.—In opposition to the division of the contents of this book into historical and prophetico-visional parts, which we have adopted, Auberlen (p. 38), and in connection with him Keil (Einl. ins A. T., 2d ed., p. 389 et seq.), and also Kranichfeld (Das Buch Daniel, p. 2 et seq.), contends that Daniel 7:0 should be included in the first part. The reasons adduced by the last mentioned exegete, as “material” in contrast with ours as merely “formal,” are, first, the prophetico-visional elements which enter also into the first part, and particularly into Daniel 2:0, and secondly, the identity of language in Daniel 7:0 with chapters 2–5, which forbids a wider separation between chapters 6 and 7 as contrary to the intention of the author. But the visional constituents of the first part are extremely meagre when compared with the far greater proportion of the narrative elements in this division; and the chronological difference between chapters 6 and 7 is decidedly more important than the affinities of language between Daniel 7:0 and the five chapters that precede it. The dream-vision recorded in chapter 7 dates, back to the reign of Belshazzar, the last (or one of the last) of the Babylonian kings, while the historical contents of the preceding chapter belong to the Medo-Persian period; hence the time of chapter 7 and also of Daniel 8:0 corresponds to that of chapter 5, while chapter 6 is contemporary with chapter 9 Since the general arrangement, both of the pre-eminently historical chapters of the first part, and of the chiefly visional contents of the second, is strictly chronological, the distribution of the entire book into the categories of history and prophecy seems to have been the leading idea by which its editor (whom we regard as identical with its author) was governed, while the identity of language in chapter 7 and the preceding chapters sinks into a merely accidental feature. The following section may serve to show the most probable explanation of this feature. For the present, we are only concerned to show that the arrangement adopted by us, even if it were based more on a formal than a material principle, conforms fully to the idea and design of the writer, and is therefore with justice retained by a majority of modern expositors—even by Zündel (p. 39 et seq.), Reusch (Einl. ins A. T., 3d ed., p. 109), and others.
§ 4. Unity of the Book of Daniel
The integrity of this book may be conclusively shown, despite the occasional attempts essayed by recent critics to represent it as a compilation of several historical and prophetic fragments of various origin; for, as has been shown in § 3, the contents of the two principal divisions form a harmonious and closely-connected whole, which must have emanated from a single author. This author is frequently designated as one and the same person—as Daniel—particularly in Daniel 7:1; Dan 13:1; Daniel 9:2; Daniel 10:1; Daniel 12:4; and he is mentioned either in the third person (Daniel 7:1; Daniel 10:1) or in the first (Daniel 7:2 et seq.; Daniel 10:2 et seq.). The same interchange of the first and third persons is found elsewhere in writings of the Old Testament that have emanated from a single author, e.g., Isaiah 7:0; Isaiah 36-39, etc. The fact that Daniel is mentioned exclusively in the third person throughout the first six chapters is sufficiently explained by the historical and descriptive character of this first main division, which merely reports occasional expressions by Daniel, of greater or less extent (e.g., Daniel 2:15; Daniel 2:20; Daniel 2:23; Daniel 2:30; Daniel 4:10 et seq.; Daniel 5:17 et seq.; Daniel 6:22 et seq.), but generally represents other persons as speaking and acting. The absence from this part of the formula, “I, Daniel, saw,” or “I, Daniel, said,” could only hold as an argument against the unity of the book, in case other discrepancies and contradictions of importance existed between the contents of the two parts. Such contradictions, however, do not occur. It is not impossible to reconcile chapter Daniel 1:21 with chapter Daniel 10:1, or chapter Daniel 6:1 with chapters Daniel 9:1 and Daniel 11:1, etc., as the exposition of those passages will show in detail. The historical part is rather connected with the prophetical in manifold relations, and their chronological parallelisms especially bear the marks of design on the part of the composer. The series of remarkable events in his life, which are first recorded, is designed as a historical introduction, or scaffolding, for the prophetic visions which follow. But within the historical part itself, chapter 1. is intimately connected, as an introduction, with the five chapters that follow. Daniel’s prophetic power and skill in interpreting dreams, are remarked in Daniel 1:17; Daniel 1:20, evidently with reference to the tests to which they were to be exposed, Daniel 2:4-5. The mention of the three friends in Daniel 1:6 et seq. paves the way for the narrative respecting their official stations and confessorship (Daniel 2:49; Daniel 3:1 et seq.). The statement that Nebuchadnezzar removed the sacred vessels of the temple from Jerusalem is a preparation for the history of their desecration by Belshazzar (Daniel 2:5 et seq.).
Nor does the diversity of language, as between the Chaldee of chapters 2–7 and the Hebrew of the remaining chapters, involve a multiplicity of authors; for, aside from the fact that a transition from the Hebrew to the Chaldee, exactly similar to that in Daniel 2:4, occurs in Ezra 4:7, the idea of a variety of authors becomes impossible in view of the intimate relation of the Hebrew chapter 1 to the succeeding Aramaic sections, which has just been noticed. The last (Daniel 7:0), of the Aramaic portions, again, is so closely connected in its leading features with the Hebrew sections that follow—and especially with chapter 8 which is introduced by the indication of time, in a manner entirely analogous to Daniel 7:1—that the discrepancy of language in this case also appears evidently as a feature of secondary importance. The contrast between the use of the Hebrew in the introductory and the five closing chapters, and of the Chaldee in chapters 2–7 can appear as other than accidental, only as the latter sections seem to have been reduced to writing at an earlier period than the former. They were probably recorded during the Chaldæan supremacy or immediately afterward, whereas the Hebrew sections that enclose them were probably added at a considerably later date, and in the time of the Persian rule. This hypothesis (first assumed by Kranichfeld) of a gradual completion of the book, or of the framing of the Chaldæan sections, which originated during the exile proper, between the Hebrew portions, Daniel 1:1 to Daniel 2:4 and Daniel 8-12, that date in the Persian period, is favored by the note in Daniel 1:21, which implies the later composition of the introduction, but more especially by the circumstance that the Chaldee fragments, without exception, convey the impression that they were recorded in the style of chronicles, immediately after the events transpired to which they relate. They also seem to indicate that the author employed this language for such journalistic minutes, as being more familiar, in view of his culture (compare § 2), while he adopted the Hebrew at a later period, perhaps because he had in the meantime acquired a sufficient readiness in its use, or because the different circumstances of the times subsequent to the captivity might lead him to regard the sacred language of the law and the earlier prophets as more appropriate for his purpose of instructing and edifying his theocratic compatriots. We therefore assert the integrity of this book with reference to all its leading divisions, and as being the work of a single author; but in the closing section of the second part, in the especially detailed prophecies of chapters 10–12, we detect the hand of a later interpolating reviser of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, for reasons which have been generally indicated (§ 1, note 2), but the more detailed elaboration of which must be reserved for the exposition (see especially on Daniel 11:5; Daniel 11:40, etc.). Such interpolations are apparent more particularly in Daniel 11:5-39 (e.g., Daniel 11:5-6; Daniel 11:8; Daniel 11:14; Daniel 11:17-18; Daniel 11:25; Daniel 11:27; Daniel 11:30-39).
Note 1.—J. D. Michaelis, Bertholdt, and Eichhorn (at least in the earlier editions of his Einlcitung), among those who reject the integrity of this book, find a considerable number of independent compositions contained in it, which are said to have been written at different times and by various authors. Of such compositions Michaelis enumerates eight, Eichhorn ten (in vol. 3 of his Hebräische Propheten, p. 428 et seq., at least five), and Bertholdt nine. The latter refers the first (Daniel 1:0) of these “Danielana,” as he calls them, to the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus; the second (chap, 2) to that of Ptolemy Philadelphus; the third (Daniel 3:1-30) to a somewhat later date; the fourth (Dan 3:31–4:34) to the age of the first Asmonæans; the fifth, sixth, and seventh (Daniel 5-8) to the same period, under Antiochus Epiphanes; the eighth (Daniel 9:0) by a priest at Jerusalem, to a date but little later; and the ninth (Daniel 10-12) to a still later time. The composers of the later sections are said generally to have known the earlier writers, and to have continued their work, in which effort they even imitated their predecessors in the use of single words and phrases. But despite their care numerous contradictions crept into the separate parts, so that, for instance, Daniel 1:21 is opposed to Daniel 10:1; Daniel 1:1; Daniel 1:5 to Daniel 2:1; Daniel 2:48-49 to Daniel 5:11-14, etc. (Bertholdt, Daniel 1:83 et seq.). The impropriety of such a mutilation of Scripture was soon understood, and was pointed out, with convincing arguments, especially by Bleek (in Schleiermacher’s Theol. Zeitschrift, 1822, No. 3, p. 241 et seq.; compare his Einleitung ins A.T., p. 585 et seq.), Hävernick (Einl. Daniel 2:2, p. 443 et seq.), and De Wette (Einleitung in das A. T., § 256). Hence Eichhorn, in the third and fourth editions of his Einleitung, contented himself with the assumption of merely two authors, of whom the one composed Daniel 2:4–6:29, and the other, Daniel 7-12, together with the Hebrew introduction, Daniel 1:1 to Daniel 2:3, in each case long after the captivity. The two-fold authorship is also asserted by Sack (Christl. Apologetik, 1829), Herbst (Histor.-Krit. Einl., published by Welte, 1840 and later, Daniel 2:2, § 34), F. Speil (Zur Echtheit des B. Daniel, in the Tüb. Theol. Quartal-Schrift, 1863, p. 194), Reusch (Einl., p. 110), and several others, inasmuch as they regard the visional part of the book, beginning with Daniel 7:0, as genuine, but claim that the narrative of Daniel’s life and of the circumstances of his time, contained in chap, 1–6, was added by a later hand, and based upon a revision of certain genuine memoranda, which were left by the prophet at his death. Hence, we are to distinguish between genuine originals, written by the prophet himself, and a later compilation which belongs to the Maccabæan period or to the age immediately preceding, and in which the author possessed the skill to imitate the prophet’s mode of thought and expression, thus producing the impression of a united apocalyptic whole. Such an origin of the book cannot be branded as wholly impossible; but the impression of closely connected, systematic, and designed unity which it makes, in respect to both its form and matter, appears to favor the view stated above, by which the first and second editor constitute a single personage, identical with the prophet Daniel, and by which the whole appears as the work of one mind, despite its gradual production in the period immediately before and after the close of the exile (compare the following note).
Three additional hypotheses concerning the origin of the book deserve attention, which likewise proceed on the assumption of a two-fold authorship, or of a distinction between a genuine original and a later interpolating revision, but which differ greatly among themselves. According to the editor [Lange] of this Bible-work (Einl. in das A. T., in the remarks preliminary to the exposition of Genesis, vol. I., p. 38 [of the Am. ed.]), the book, which otherwise originated entirely with the captive prophet Daniel, received two extensive additions in its final sections, at the hands of an apocalyptist of the Maccabæan period, who was led to make these interpolations in view of the severe trials of the time. These additions comprise chap, Daniel 10:1 to Daniel 11:44, and Daniel 12:5-13; hence the predictions which relate specially to Antiochus Epiphanes and his time, and which bear pre-eminently the stamp of vaticinia ex eventu. The professed interpolation of 2 Peter 1:20 to 2 Peter 3:3 from the epistle of Jude, which the editor has endeavored to establish, in vol. I. of his Geschichte des apostolischen Zeitalters (p. 152 et seq.), more thoroughly than this asserted addition to Daniel, is adduced as an analogous instance; but it does not seem to be sufficiently demonstrated, despite the manifold advantages it would afford to the apologist. We are obliged to prefer the view of a mere interpolating revision of chapters 10–12 by a pious apocalyptist of the Asmonæan period, and to hold to the probable insertion of several brief passages, which cannot in our day be clearly distinguished, instead of accepting the introduction of the lengthy section, Daniel 10:1 to Daniel 11:44, together with that in Daniel 12:5-13. A later inventor of the entire prophetic imagery of chapters 10 and 11 would display an incredible talent in his imitations of the prophet’s literary style. Moreover, the writer of Ecclesiasticus (about B. C. 180) seems to have recognized passages like Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:20, as original with Daniel, and to have imitated them as such; also the Septuagint. See below § 6, note 2, and compare the exegesis of the chapters in question.17 The view of Ewald (Die Propehten des A. Bds., 1st ed., II. 562 et seq.) is peculiar. According to him, the prophet Daniel lived at the heathen court of Nineveh as early as the Assyrian captivity, about B. C. 700. A Jewish contemporary of Alexander the Great invented prophecies relating to the world-kingdoms, and attributed them to this wise man of the Assyrian period, while another Jew, living in the time of the Maccabees, added further embellishments to the book as he found it. Somewhat more definite and thoughtful is Bunsen (Gott in der Geschichte, I. 514 et seq.). The Daniel of Assyrian times, who lived at Nineveh under Pul and Sargon, about the middle of the 8th century B. C., left behind him figurative prophecies concerning the destruction of Asshur (the winged lion) by the Babylonian empire (a devouring bear; cf. Daniel 7:2 et seq.); these ancient oracles, together with legendary records concerning the personal fortunes of Daniel, and particularly his deliverance from the den of lions, were transmitted, either verbally or in writing, until a writer of the Maccabæan period gave them their present form, in connection with which work, however, he committed the grave historical error of transferring the prophet to the period of the Babylonian captivity, and of substituting the Babylonian monarchy for the Assyrian, and the Medo-Persian for the original Babylonian (cf. above, § 2, note 2). Neither Ewald nor Bunsen are able to furnish any positive proof in support of these strained, artificial, and fantastic views. The assertion that the later Jewish writers constantly substituted Babylon for Asshur is entirely arbitrary and incapable of proof; and the removal of Daniel to “the great river which is Hiddekel” can no more be considered a mere echo of the history of Daniel in Nineveh, than the imaginary winged creatures with human visages can be regarded as dark allusions to the colossal statues on the palaces of Nimrud. In our exposition of the related passages we will aim to show that both these features may be adequately explained on the assumption of a Babylonian career in the case of the prophet. Bunsen, however, appears to have subsequently given up his arbitrary view, in favor of the general pseudo-Daniel tendency-hypothesis (see the prefaces in vol. I. of his Bibelwerk, p. 54); while the view of Ewald appears unchanged in the recent 2d edition of his Propheten des Alten Bundes (vol. III. p. 312 et seq.).
Note 2.—In support of the opinion laid down in this section, that the book was composed at different times by Daniel himself, compare Kranichfeld, Das Buck Daniel (Einl., p. 4): “For the rest, the Chaldee fragments in their present state, without an incorporated introduction and conclusion, cannot in themselves have formed a separate work. Their formal and abrupt character produces rather the impression of an occasional composition in the manner of a diary, which was undertaken at different times, and perhaps in connection with corresponding events of the exile in the Chaldæan period, while the conception of the Hebrew introduction may have fallen, agreeably to the remark in Daniel 1:21, in the time of the Persian supremacy. Presuming the genuineness of the book, the overthrow of both the Chaldæan and the Persian dynasties in Babylon would therefore have occurred between the composition of the several Chaldee fragments and that of the Hebrew section, Daniel 1:1 to Daniel 2:4; and a very different condition of affairs, having an especial significance for Israel, would meanwhile have been introduced. This would also be sufficient to account for the choice of the Hebrew dress of chapters 8–12, and, in general, to establish their subsequent composition, which is now more than ever a question of interest.” Compare the same writer, p. 53 et seq.: “The composition of the Chaldee fragments accordingly belonged to a time in which the heathen oppressors as such, and the measures of the heathen tyranny, were everywhere prominent; and it is natural that a theocratical writer of this period should fix his gaze on these features, and clothe his narrative in a form likely to be effective among the Chaldæan population, and serviceable to oppose their hostile and insolent measures, as well as that he should attempt this in the Chaldæan language, which was current among the oppressors.18 With the close of the exile a new range of vision opened before the theocrat. The oppressive tyranny which was before his leading thought, is no longer prominent in that character; the hitherto passive people of the theocracy is now roused to a more active concern for its national interests. Appropriate as was the Chaldee tongue before the dawning of the new period, the language of his people and of the fathers, which the writer employs, in common with the prophets after the exile, to convey his supplemental and additional matter, is no less appropriate after that period has begun. With his attention fixed upon his people, the prophet now gave its final and united form to his book, during the first year of the sole reign of Cyrus, as has been noticed above. The Chaldee portions, which were composed during the captivity, and whose form was due to that circumstance, received their place in the book in connection with this final revision; and there was no reason why the existing Chaldee material should be rendered into Hebrew for the benefit of his compatriots, who were familiar with the language of Babylon, especially as the Chaldee dress itself contributed not a little to the vivid representation of the circumstances described.”
We accept, in all its essential features, this hypothesis respecting the composition of our book as being highly probable and attractive;19 but instead of finding in a designed reference to the Chaldæan oppressors the motive which induced the prophet to compose in Aramaic the portions (Daniel 2-7) belonging to the exile, we would adopt the more simple and natural view, that during that period he was accustomed to employ the Chaldee tongue, with which he was chiefly familiar; and that, in his written productions especially, he availed himself of its use, to the exclusion of all others. This does not involve the admission that he may not already at that time have acquired, by means of reading and study, that marked familiarity with the sacred language and literature of his people, which Daniel 1:17; Daniel 1:20 (cf. with Daniel 1:4) seem to imply. In this connection we would also venture the supposition with respect to the “occasional journalizing notes” of events belonging to the Chaldæan (and Median) period, as found in Daniel 2-7, that Daniel employed with design the chronicling style of the older prophets, which regarded all the facts to be related from a strictly theocratical point of view, and by which their supernatural features were rather intensified and idealized, than simplified and reduced to sober events of common occurrence. Compare § 9, Note 1.
§ 5. Authenticity of the Book
a. Review of the Attacks on, and Defence of, its Genuineness
The most ancient assailant of the genuineness of Daniel’s prophecies of whom we have a certain knowledge, was the Neo-platonic Porphyry (died A. D. 304). In his fifteen books “against the Christians,” which are known to us only through Jerome so far as they contain attacks on this book, he contends for its composition in Maccabæan times, and for the forged character of its prophecies as mere vaticinia ex eventu.20 It is uncertain whether Jewish rabbins who opposed Christianity were his predecessors and instructors in this assertion, or not. A passage in the Talmud, which attributes the “recording” of several books of the Old Testament, and among them Daniel, to the members of the Great Synagogue beginning with Ezra,21 affords no support to the opinion that the authenticity of the book was denied in pre-Christian times in Jewish circles, since that “recording” is doubtless not to be understood in the sense of an original composition, but rather as a renewed recording on the authority of an exact tradition, or rather, of a new inspiration. The entire statement is, therefore, merely an empty legend of the sort which is represented by the Jewish tales concerning the marvellous reproduction of the Pentateuch by Ezra, the origin of the Septuagint, etc. The statement of Isidore of Seville (died A. D. 636) that “Ezekiel and Daniel are said to have been written by certain wise men”22 points back to the same muddy Jewish-rabbinical source. The “wise men” in this case can scarcely be other than the men of the Great Synagogue, and their “writing” of the books of Ezekiel and Daniel cannot designate a forgery in any sense, but must be explained as in the Talmudic tradition referred to. In short, the older period exhibits no definite instance of the rejection of the authenticity of this prophetic book beyond the solitary one of Porphyry; and only the immediate opponents of this writer, as Methodius, Eusebius of Cæssarea, Apollinaris of Laodicea, or church fathers of the age next following, were engaged in the defense of the genuineness of the book, while refuting his objections.
In the 17th century the opponents of its genuineness became somewhat more numerous, but their objections were at first without any scientific value. Spinoza (Tractat. theol.-polit., x. 130 et seq.) held, that only Daniel 8-12 were genuine; Daniel 1-7 might originally have formed component parts of the annals of the Chaldæan reigns, which, together with the final five chapters, were probably collected and published by a later hand. Hobbes (Leviathan, c. 33) doubted whether Daniel himself or a subsequent writer had recorded his prophecies. Sir Isaac Newton (Observations upon the prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John, I. p. 10), whose view was followed, in the main, by Beausobre (Remarques sur le N. Test, I. p. 70), thought that “the last six chapters contained prophecies composed at various times by Daniel himself, while the six former ones were a collection of historical essays by other authors.” By this, however, he did not intend to attack the credibility or the inspired character of the book; on the contrary, he declared solemnly that “whoever rejects the prophecies of Daniel, does as much as if he undermined the Christian religion, which, so to speak, is founded on Daniel’s prophecies of Christ.” If he regarded the first six chapters as not the work of Daniel, it was not because he objected to the wonders recorded in them, as Zündel thinks (Kritische Untersuchungen, etc., p. s), but because he believed that their mode of presentation indicated one or several authors other than Daniel. It was different, however, with Collins, the deistical contemporary of Newton, and with the somewhat older Jewish atheist Uriel Acosta (about A. D. 1630), who denied the credibility of the book together with its genuineness, but with a bungling criticism that is wholly involved in the prejudices of naturalistic dogmatism.23
Among the representatives of German rationalism, Semler contented himself with a very general denial of the inspiration of the book of Daniel, for the reason that he “could discover no such benefit in it as God always designs to secure to man when he employs very peculiar means for that end” (Freie Untersuchung des Kanon, III. 505). Michaelis and Eichhorn, while contesting the integrity of the book (see above § 4, note 1), endeavored to establish the genuineness of at least the last chapters. Eichhorn did not venture to assert the Maccabæan origin of the whole book (in the 3d and 4th ed. of his Einleitung), and consequently its forged character, until Corrodi had declared it to be wholly the work of an impostor of the times of Antiochus Epiphanes,24 in his Freimüthigen Versuchen über verschiedene in Theologie und bibl. Kritik einschlagende Gegenst ünde. Bertholdt now followed with his super-ingenious mutilating hypothesis, which was wholly based on the assumption of forgery (cf. supra), and later, Griesinger, Gesenius, De Wette, Kirmss, Redepenning, Von Lengerke, Knobel, Hitzig, Stähelin, Hilgenfeld, and others.25 The greatest scientific ability and judgment in contesting the authenticity of this book, but, at the same time, in breaking the force of the assaults on its integrity, made by Bertholdt and Eichhorn, was displayed by Bleek.26 The more recent deniers of the genuineness of the book, with but few exceptions, agree with him in giving up its historical character to a greater or less extent, and in assigning it to the Maccabæan period, and regarding its prophecies as vaticinia ex eventu—hence, in holding essentially the same critical position which was occupied by Porphyry. The grounds on which their assertions are based are partly internal and partly external in their nature. They are drawn in part from the place of the book in the canon and its relation to the later Jewish apocryphal literature, and in part from its peculiarities of language, the asserted mythical character of its historical part, the chronological difficulties which it is said to present, and the apocalyptical character of its prophecies. In the following section we shall engage in a more detailed examination of these arguments, and in that connection find opportunity to become acquainted with the substantial and enduring services of the more recent defenders of the genuineness of the book. Among them belong, of Protestants, Lüderwald, Stäudlin, Beckhaus, Hengstenberg, Hävernick, Keil, Auberlen, Delitzsch, Zündel, Volck, Kranichfeld, Pusey, Fuller, and others; of Roman Catholics, Jahn, Hug, Herbst, Scholz, Speil, Reusch, and others.27
§ 6. Authenticity of the Book (Continued)
b. Examination of the external reasons against the genuineness of Daniel.
Among the external grounds on which opponents are accustomed to contest the origin of the book with Daniel, its position among the Hagiographa, in the third and last part of the Hebrew canon, generally forms their chief reliance. That this fact, so suspicious at first sight, is by no means inexplicable, but rather has its adequate explanation in the peculiar prophetic character of Daniel and his writings, as well as in the composition of the book, partly in Hebrew and partly in Chaldee, has already been shown (§ 1, particularly notes 2 and 3, and also § 2, note 3). We confine ourselves in this place to the suggestion that possibly the times of severe trial and of conflict with anti-Christian powers, which the prophet of the exile foretold to his people, might seem to the scribes of the centuries succeeding the captivity to present too great a contrast to the subjects of the other prophets, who dwelt chiefly on the prospects of deliverance that should come to the people of God; and that, consequently, they hesitated to acknowledge the full canonical value of this book,—in like manner as they questioned the canonical authority of Ecclesiastes during an extended period, through the influence of their optimistic hopes for the future (compare note 1). The book, however, is classed with the other three greater prophets in the Septuagint; but the conclusion that it originally occupied this position in the Hebrew Bible as well (so Herbst, Spoil, and others contend) does not necessarily follow. Bather, the framers of the Hebrew canon seem to have attached greater importance to the literary and lingual peculiarities of the book than to anything else, and, for this reason, to have regarded its separation from the prophetical literature in the narrower sense, as necessary, however much they might recognize in it the genuine work of a prophet living under the exile.28
That the book was in fact so recognized appears highly probable, in view of the manifold references to its declarations in the later prophetic writings and in several of the Old-Testament apocrypha. Among the prophets after the captivity, whose reference to Daniel is utterly denied by Bleek, Zechariah at least seems to betray an acquaintance with the prophecies of Daniel, his apocalyptic model and predecessor, particularly in the vision of the four horns (Daniel 2:1), and in that of the four chariots (Daniel 6:1), which are referred by several expositors to the four world-kingdoms of Daniel; further, in Daniel 11:8, where the three shepherds, who should be cut off in one month by the Lord, are possibly a symbolizing of the first three world-kingdoms of Daniel, and of their overthrow in rapid succession (compare note 2). Among the Apocrypha—aside from uncertain analogies, such as exist between Wis 5:17 and Daniel 7:18; Daniel 7:27; Wis 14:16 and Daniel 3:0—at least 1Ma 1:57 (“Abomination of desolation,” cf. Daniel 9:27) and 1Ma 2:59 et seq. (the deliverance of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the fiery furnace, and of Daniel from the lion’s den; cf. Daniel 3:16 et seq.; Daniel 6:21 et seq.), and still more the book of Baruch, may be regarded as unquestionable witnesses for the canonical dignity of our book in pre-Maccabæan times. The analogies to the prayer of Daniel (Daniel 9:0), which the latter book presents in Daniel 2:0 (especially Daniel 2:6; Daniel 2:11; Daniel 2:15; Daniel 2:19), and its references to Nebuchadnezzar and to “Belshazzar his son,” in Daniel 1:11-12, are the more important and unquestionable as proof, because the Hebrew original, which we are compelled to receive, indicates with tolerable certainty the origin of this book in pre Maccabæan times, and probably as early as the fourth century B. C. Under these circumstances, the fact that Ecclesiasticus, whose Hebrew original likewise indicates its composition before the period of the Maccabees, contains no definite allusions to Daniel, and especially that his name is not mentioned in its enumeration (Daniel 49) of Israel’s great religious heroes, which includes Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets, is of no considerable importance. This feature may be regarded as purely accidental, and the rather, as the immediate context (49:13 et seq.) mentions Zerubbabel, Joshua, and Nehemiah among the great men of the time immediately after the exile, but omits the name of Ezra; as many of the prominent champions of Israel are not included in the remarkable list beginning with Daniel 45, e.g., Joseph, Gideon, Samson, Jehoshaphat, etc.; and finally, as the silence of Ecclus. in regard to Daniel “is more than balanced by his mention in Ezekiel 14, 28” (Reusch, p. 112; cf. supra, § 2, note 2). Moreover, the words ἑκάστῳ ἔθνει κατέστησεν ἡγούμενον in Sir 17:17 probably contain an allusion to the angelology of Daniel, and are to be explained in accordance with Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:20; Daniel 12:1 (Hävernick, Einl. II. 2, p. 451). Concerning the Sybilline Oracles as an especially important source of proofs for the authenticity of Daniel, see note 3.
The passage in the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus, Book XI Daniel 8:0, which relates that, among others, the prophecies of Daniel were shown by the Jewish priests to Alexander the Great, on the occasion of his visit to Jerusalem, and that he was greatly pleased by the oracle respecting the overthrow of the Persian dynasty, which so clearly referred to him, might constitute an important testimony for the genuineness of this book, or for its origin during the exile; but many embellishments and internal improbabilities seem to lower the value of this tradition to a degree that forbids the definite conclusion that the statement concerning the book of Daniel is to be included in the genuine historical kernel of this incident, the essential truth of which, however, is indicated by various considerations (e.g. the noteworthy and certainly historical statement that, at the request of the high-priest, Alexander granted immunity from taxation to the Jews during every seventh or fallow year). So much the more decisive is the testimony of the New Testament in support of the inspired character of the book and of the prophetic dignity of its author, which occurs in the familiar reference of Our Lord to Daniel 9:27, in his great eschatological discourse (Matthew 24:15 : ὅταν οὖν ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου ἑστὸς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ—ὁ�, etc.), and which is paralleled by other unmistakable allusions to Daniel’s expressions in the discourses of Our Lord. Among these we reckon the constantly repeated designation of himself as “the Son of Man,” the adoption of which phrase from Daniel 7:13 is open to no serious objection, while its identity with Daniel’s בַּר־אֱנָשׁ is unmistakably revealed, especially in prophetic descriptions, such as Matthew 19:28; Matthew 24:30; Matthew 26:64. The prophecy concerning the resurrection of the good and the evil, in John 5:28-29, likewise, is clearly based on Daniel 12:2-3, of this book. Among the numerous allusions to our prophet which are found in the writings of the Apostles, we instance merely 2 Thessalonians 2:3 et seq.; 1 Peter 1:10-12 (cf. Daniel 3:6), and the Apocalypse, which latter book is based throughout on the prophecies of Daniel, and therefore vouches, with its entire contents, for the Divinely inspired and canonical character of this book.
Note 1.—Kranichfeld, p. 8 et seq., explains in a striking manner to what extent the peculiar theological, or rather eschatological, character of Daniel’s prophecies may have been influential in retarding their admission into the canon during the pre-Maccabæan period: “The prophecies of Daniel, in contrast with the oracles of earlier prophets, foretell a period of severe tribulation in the future, which the sufferings of the exile have not warded off; and they predict this far more constantly, positively, and directly than does the book of Zechariah, or any prophecy of the period succeeding the captivity, the aim of the latter being chiefly to comfort and encourage the returned exiles in their discouraging circumstances. There was thus a sufficient reason, in the character of the book itself, to warrant its being received with caution by the age succeeding the exile, and even to justify the temporary ignoring of its claims; for, on the one hand, it contradicted the sentiment of that age, which indulged in exalted hopes of deliverance based on the older prophecies, and, on the other, it had emanated from one who was not even a prophet by a specific call. A similar treatment appears to have been accorded to the book of Ecclesiastes during an extended period, which likewise resulted from its contents, although differing extremely from those of Daniel. In the Asmonæan period, however, the impression produced by the religious and political events which illustrated its prophecies, secured the book a ready reception into the canon, although it was excluded from the second part of the sacred writings, which had probably been closed for centuries, and was limited by traditional usage. This simple explanation, which removes every difficulty in relation to the place of the book in the canon, is not contradicted by the remark of Josephus (Contra Apion, I. 8) concerning the closing of the canon in the time of Artaxerxes, which is, in the main, correct. That statement, as Keil correctly observes (Einl.§ 154), refers to the time of the composition of the sacred writings, in harmony with the fact that neither Ecclesiasticus nor 1 Maccabees (which were composed only two centuries before Christ) found a place in the canon; but it does not preclude the subsequent conclusion of the collecting and receiving into the third section of the canon of older sacred writings. “Similar views are advanced, so far as the last question is concerned, by Hengstenberg, Beitr. I. 23 et seq., and Zündel, Krit. Unteruchungen, p. 190 et seq., 214 et seq. Also compare below, § 10.
Note 2.—Among older expositors, Jerome, Abarbanel, Kimchi, and Drusius, refer Zechariah’s visions of the four horns (Daniel 2:1), etc. and of the four chariots (Daniel 6:1 et seq.), to the world-kingdoms of Daniel, as do Baumgarten (Nachtgesichte des Sacharja), Zündel (Kritische Untersuchungen, 249), Pusey (Daniel, p. 357), Füller, Kliefoth, and W. Volck (Vindiciœ Danielicœ, p. 3 et seq.), among moderns; while Köhler (Nachexilische Propheten, Daniel 2:1) and a majority of later expositors deny the fact of such a relation. Köhler, however, (ibid., II. p. 138) agrees with Von Hofmann, Ebrard, Kliefoth, Zündel, and Volck (l.c., p. 26) in referring the “three shepherds,” Zechariah 11:8, to the first three world-kingdoms, and assumes, in addition, a relation of the prophecy against Javan, Zechariah 9:13, to Daniel 8:8 et seq. But the correspondence of these latter passages, if it is to be accepted at all, is of minor importance, because the chapters Zechariah 9-11. possibly originated with a prophet Zechariah, who flourished before the exile, and therefore may be older than the Daniel of the captivity. Compare, however, the arguments adduced to the contrary by Hengstenberg, Beitr. I. 36 et seq.; also by the editor of this Bible-work, in vol. I. of the Old Test., p. 44 [Am. ed.].
Note 3.—In relation to the references in Ecclesiasticus to Daniel, see Zündel, p. 188; and the same, p. 191 et seq., concerning the much clearer and more important references in the book of Baruch, where the opinion of Dillmann, as stated in his essay on the formation of the Old-Test. canon (Jahrbb. f. deutsche, Theol., 1858, p. 480), is quoted: “The book of Baruch, by no means a contemptible after-piece of prophetical literature, may have been in circulation in its Hebrew form as early as the fourth century B. C.;” and where, at the same time, it is shown most clearly that the pseudo-Baruch was undeniably acquainted with the book of Daniel, and imitated many of its features, particularly the prophet’s prayer, Daniel 9:0. Hengstenberg, p. 288 et seq., Hävernick, Einl. II. 2, 459 et seq., and Pusey, in his Commentary, p. 370, show that the echoes of this book found in 1 Maccabees (which are so clear and unmistakable, that scholars like Bleek, De Wette, and Grimm [on 1Ma 1:57] have acknowledged this occurrence) are entitled, despite the composition of the book toward the close of the second century B. C., to rank as indirect testimonies for the origin of Daniel prior to the Asmonæan period. Concerning Ecclus. and its omission of Daniel from the ὑμνὸς πατέοων, chapters 44–50, see Hävernick, p. 451 et seq.; Herbst, Einl. II. 2, 88; Keil, Einl., p. 452; Hengstenberg, p. 21 sq.; Kranichfeld, p. 10, etc. Some of these writers, however (e.g., Hävernick, Keil, Hengstenberg, together with Bretschneider and others), go too far when they reject the passage, 49:12, as not genuine, and thus exclude all mention of the twelve minor prophets as well; for there is no sufficient reason to suspect that verse on critical grounds (cf. Bleek, Einl., p. 589). It has been pointed out, especially by Hävernick (Einl. l. c., p. 457 et seq.) and Zündel (p. 173 et seq.; cf. p. 140 et seq.), that the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament in general, and of Daniel in particular (cf. infra, § 11), which probably originated in the second century B. C., reveals many traces of the existence of our prophetical book prior to the Maccabæan age; that, for instance, its rendering of Deuteronomy 32:8, ὅτε διεμέριζεν ὁ ὕψιστος ἔθνη, ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ�, seems to rest on Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:20, like the passage, Sir 17:17, which is cited above; and that citations from its version of Daniel occur in the first book of Maccabees (1Ma 1:57), as well as in the Sibylline oracles (3:396, 613, etc.); facts that argue with great force the origin of this Greek version in the Asmonæan period, and therefore, at the very time to which the negative criticism assigns the original Daniel itself. The testimonies drawn from the Apocrypha are, with rare exceptions, surpassed in importance and evidential force by the agreement of the Sibyllines with Daniel, since the unanimous consent of competent scholars, such as Bleek, Lücke, Friedlieb, and others, ascribes the composition of the portion of the Oracula Sibyllina in question (lib. III., 5:35–746) to an Alexandrian Jew, and dates it in the first half of the second century, or, more probably, about 160 B. C. The correspondence of many of these verses to passages in our prophetical book, or rather in its Alexandrian version, cannot be questioned; and the supposition ventured by Bleek, that both (pseudo-Daniel and the pseudo-Sibyllines) sprang from a common source of a more ancient time, is merely an arbitrary evasion to hide his embarrassment. Compare Sibyll., lib. III., 5:396 ss.: Ῥίζαν ἵαν γε διδούς, ῆν καὶ κόψει βροτολοίγος. Ἐκ δέκα δὴ κεράτων· παρὰ δὴ φυτὸν ἄλλο φυτεύσει ……… καὶ τότε δὴ παραφυόμενον κέρας ἄρξει, with the Sept. at Daniel 7:7-8; Daniel 7:11; Daniel 7:20;—also Sibyll., III. Dan 613: πὰντα δὲ συγκόψει καὶ πάντα κακῶν�, with Sept., Daniel 7:23-24.
Note 4.—Hengstenberg (p. 258 et seq., 277 et seq.) is especially thorough and profound in his examination of the testimony of Christ and the apostles, and of Josephus in Ant., xi. 8, 5. He may attempt too much in seeking to establish the historical character of all the details connected with the perhaps somewhat legendary narrative respecting the incident by which Alexander became acquainted with Daniel’s prophecies; but his statements convey the decided impression that the narrative in question is not a pure invention without any foundation in fact. He quotes, on page 288, the significant judgment of H. Leo respecting the credibility of this account (as expressed in his Vorlesungen über die Geschichte des jüdischen Volks, p. 200, which, as is well known, breathe anything rather than a believing spirit): “The entire narrative contains nothing that is really improbable. An armed resistance on the part of the high-priest would have been madness; he may therefore have gone out to meet Alexander in peace. It is also well known that Alexander sought to impress the Asiatic world with the belief that he was in league with the gods of the nations whom he had conquered. It has been considered improbable that Alexander should not have hastened from Gaza directly to Egypt; but to go from Gaza to Egypt by way of Jerusalem involved at most an additional journey of a few days, and Judæa was not a point to be disregarded in an expedition to Egypt. It would be unwise to leave this mountain region in the rear, in the possession of an enemy.” See also Zündel, p. 238 et seq., where the hypercritical objection of Hitzig, “The book was not produced, and if it had existed at the time, it would certainly have been shown” (Heidelberger Jahrb., 1832, II., p. 235), is justly regarded as an indirect testimony for the trustworthiness of the account by Josephus.
§ 7. Authenticity of the Book (Continued)
c. Examination of the internal reasons against its genuineness, and more particularly of those derived from peculiarities of language and style.
It has already been repeatedly shown that the lingual structure of this book—the transition into Chaldee, Daniel 2:4, the essential identity of this idiom with the Chaldee of Ezra, the Hebraisms and Parseeisms contained in it, and finally, the marked Chaldaizing tendency of the Hebrew portions, similar to the style of Ezekiel—that all this corresponds fully with the assumption of an author who flourished at the Chaldæan court of Babylon, and who was of Jewish birth, but educated in the customs and wisdom of the Chaldæans (see § 1, note 3, and § 4, note 2). It is only necessary, in this connection, to refer to the Greek expressions, which have been regarded as proving the later origin of the work in an especially decisive way. Bertholdt was still able to enumerate ten such expressions, but the more recent opponents of the genuineness of the book find the number reduced to three or four, as the result of a careful word-criticism. All of these are names of musical instruments, such as might easily have been introduced at Babylon by commercial intercourse, even prior to the exile. They comprise the terms פְּסַנְתְּרִין=ψαλτήριον, סוּמְפֹּנִיָה=συμφωνί, קִיתְרוֹס=κίθαρις, and סַבְּכָא=σαμβύκη, all of which occur in the history of Daniel’s friends and the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:5; Daniel 3:7; Daniel 3:10; Daniel 3:15). But even among these the third is possibly of Oriental origin, and the last almost certainly so. The σαμβύκη or ζαμβύκη (also ἰαμβύκη) of the Greek was, according to Athenæus (Deipnosoph. 4:182; 14:634), a Syrian invention, and the Shemitic סַבְּכָא (related to סבךְ, “to interweave”) seems therefore to be the primitive form, from which the Græcized ασ μύκη is derived. קִיתְרוֹס may possibly be the Persian Si-tareh, “six-stringed,” and may stand related to κίθαρις, which is to be derived from the same source, as a sister rather than as a mother. Pareau, Hengstenberg, Hävernick, Haneberg, and others, have even attempted to trace the two remaining terms to a Shemitic source, and have accordingly derived סומפניה from סוּף, “a reed, and פסנתרין from פַּס, “a hand,” and נָתַר, “to leap” (therefore, “strings that are played by hand”). But excessive difficulties stand in the way of such an etymology, particularly the Greek sound in the endings of the two words (פסנתרין seems to be singular rather than plural), and the circumstance that συμφωνία, if not ψαλτήριον, occurs in the classics as the name of an instrument, as may be seen in the passage Polyb. Fragm., 31, t. 4, and as may be concluded from the Italian designation of the bagpipe, zambogna or sampogna, which is probably derived from that source. On the other hand, the assumption that the instruments of the Greeks were in use among the Chaldæans early in the sixth century B. C., or even in the seventh and eighth, involves no difficulty whatever. It would seem strange, rather, if no traces of commercial intercourse with the Greeks at about the middle of the sixth century B. C. were found in Babylon, the primitive “city of merchants” (Ezekiel 17:4; Ezekiel 17:12; cf. Joshua 7:21), since the Assyrian kings Esar-haddon, Sargon, and Sennacherib were involved in either friendly or hostile relations with the Greeks of Asia Minor, as early as the eighth century B. C. Further, “Javan” is mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions of Sargon among the nations who were tributary to Assyria; according to Strabo, xiii. 3, 2, a Greek, the brother of the poet Alcæus, served in the armies of Nebuchadnezzar as a mercenary, or, more probably, as the leader of a band of Greek mercenaries; the Ionian philosopher, Anaximander, displays considerable knowledge of the Orient in his map of the world, which was prepared in the same period; and finally, commercial relations of considerable importance were maintained between the lands of the Euphrates and the Greek colonies of Asia Minor, certainly in the eighth century B. C., and possibly, through Phœnician channels, as early as the days of Homer (see notes 1 and 2).
It appears, therefore, that no unanswerable objection against the origin of this book during the period of the captivity can be established on the ground of its peculiarities of language; nor do the remaining literary peculiarities, such as the method in which the prophet refers to himself and his personal relations, afford the slightest reason to doubt its composition by Daniel. “The honorable references to Daniel (Daniel 1:17; Daniel 1:19; Daniel 5:11 et seq.; Daniel 6:4; Daniel 9:23; Daniel 10:11) are analogous to many expressions employed by the Apostle Paul concerning himself, e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:10; 2 Corinthians 11:5 et seq.; Daniel 12:2 et seq.; and they are necessary, either to complete the historical representation, as in the case of the predicate ‘greatly beloved,’ applied to him by the angel in Daniel 9:23; Daniel 10:11, or in the honorable mention of his name to Belshazzar by the queen, Daniel 5:11-12; or they belong to passages which aim to honor God, who had endowed his servant with miraculous wisdom (Daniel 1:17 et seq.; Daniel 6:4). Consequently, they contain no trace of Pelagian self-laudation which could militate against the opinion that the book which bears his name was composed by himself” (Keil, Einl., p. 452 sq.).—Nor does the religiously moral deportment of the prophet, as it is described by himself in this book, afford a proof in any other direction against its composition in the period of the exile. His custom of observing three seasons of daily prayer, as mentioned in Daniel 6:11, his frequent fasts (Daniel 9:3; Daniel 10:3; Daniel 10:12), and the strict abstinence from profane food of himself and his youthful friends (Daniel 1:8 et seq.), do not necessarily indicate a period subsequent to the exile, and even as late as that of the Asmonæans, as is abundantly shown by passages like Psalms 55:18; Ezra 8:21 et seq.; Daniel 9:3 et seq.; Nehemiah 1:4; Nehemiah 9:1; Zechariah 7:3; Zechariah 8:19; Hosea 9:3-4; Ezekiel 22:26; Ezekiel 44:23; Ezekiel 33:25, etc. His dogmatic position no more requires an explanation based on the condition or experiences of God’s people after the exile, than such ascetic habits, or the exalted value, which, according to Daniel 2:18; Daniel 9:3; Daniel 10:2 et seq., he attaches to prayer and intercession, oblige us to regard him as involved in the narrow-minded legal and work-righteous conceptions of the later Judaism. His description of the Messiah and his kingdom—in contrast with the apocryphal literature of the period after the captivity, from which Messianic ideas and hopes are almost entirely wanting—is intimately related to the predictions of the older prophets, and especially of Isaiah (cf. Isaiah 9:4 et seq. with Daniel 7:13 sq.). The relation between the expected founding of Messiah’s kingdom and the general resurrection of the dead, which he indicates in Daniel 12:2 et seq., corresponds to the older prophetic descriptions in Isaiah 24:0; Isaiah 66:22-24; Ezekiel 37:0, but finds no analogy in the later apocryphal literature, unless we except 2Ma 7:9 et seq., which passage, however, is probably based on Daniel 12:0 as its model. Nor does the angelology of the book present any specific feature which points to a period later than the exile; much less does it indicate that its teachings result from the influence of the religious thought of Persia on Judaism. Rather, they are closely related, on the one hand, to the angelology of Ezekiel and Zechariah (cf., e.g., Ezekiel 9:10; also Ezekiel 1:26, and Zechariah 1-6), and, on the other, they are rooted in the much older views and experiences of the time before the exile; e.g., the idea of protecting spirits of single states is founded in Isaiah 24:21; that concerning princes of the angels (Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:20; Daniel 12:1), doubtless in the familiar account in the book of Joshua respecting the “captain of the Lord’s host” (Joshua 14:0). Therefore, in this direction also, the literary character of the book reveals nothing that indicates an anti-Daniel or a pseudo-Daniel (cf. note 3).
Note 1.—Delitzsch observes, p. 274, on the relationship of the Hebrew of Daniel to that of Ezekiel, that “the Hebrew of this book is closely related especially to that of Ezekiel, whose book may be, and doubtless is, included among the ספרים in Daniel 9:2; and it is a surprising accident that it conforms somewhat to Habakkuk also, whom tradition associates with Daniel.” The following expressions are adduced in support of the former correspondence, by Hävernick (N. krit. Unterss., p. 97 et seq.) and Keil (Einl., p. 446): the vocative בֶּן אָדָם, Daniel 8:17; זֹחַר, brightness, Daniel 12:3, cf. Ezekiel 8:2; חַרֵּב, to render liable to penalty, Daniel 1:10, and חוֹב, debt, Ezekiel 18:7; כָּתַב for סָפַר, Daniel 10:21, cf. Ezekiel 13:9; לָבוּשׁ בַּדִּים, Ezekiel 10:5, cf. Ezekiel 9:2-3; פַּתְבַּג, royal food, Ezekiel 1:5, and בַּג, food, Ezek. 25:27; מָלָל, polished, Daniel 10:6, cf. Ezekiel 1:7, etc. With reference to the relation of the Aramaic of Daniel to that of Ezra, and to the Chaldee of the Targums of a later age, consult Hävernick and Keil, as above, and cf. supra, § 1, note 3. It is the peculiar merit of Pusey to have established, in his profoundly learned commentary, the high antiquity of the Chaldaism of Daniel, in comparison with that of the Targums and the rabbins, by his examination of numerous individual forms, and especially of the many asserted Hebraisms of this book.
Note 2.—On the question whether the musical instruments of the Greeks may have been known to the Babylonians, and even to the Assyrians, consult Delitzsch, p. 274; Auberlen, p. 12 et seq.; Kranichfeld, p. 48 et seq., and the passage cited by the two former from Joh. Brandis, Ueber den histor. Gewinn aus der Entzifferung der assyrischen Inschriften, 1856, p. 1 et seq., where the observation is made, in relation to the commercial intercourse of the ancient Greeks, that “the extended commerce of the Greek colonies would frequently lead their merchants to Assyrian countries, since they penetrated even to the inhospitable steppes on the Dnieper and the Don. Their most important enterprises were probably connected with the Assyrian provinces of Asia Minor, and above all with the countries on the coasts of Pontus and along the Mediterranean Sea, doubtless including Lydia also, where the Assyrian supremacy seems to have been maintained during more than five hundred years, and almost to the close of the eighth century B. C. These nations must also have met in Cyprus, where the Greeks traded at an early period, and where the Assyrians had firmly established themselves. We are obliged to be content with a supposition that Greeks came as far as Assyria proper, in the capacity of merchants; but Greek soldiers certainly accompanied Esar-haddon, the first among the Assyrian rulers to form a corps of mercenaries (Abydenus in Euseb., Chron. Armen., ed. Aucher I., p. 53), on his marches through Asia,” etc. Compare also the interesting work, by Brandis, Das Münz-, Mass- und Gewichtswesen in Vorderasien bis auf Alexander d. Gr., 1867. Respecting the Greeks as the musicians κατ̓ ἐξοχήν in the world, see Auberlen, as above: “Attention may also be directed to the fact that the Greeks, as the patrons of art, occupied a position in the ancient world similar to that conceded to the Italians in the modem; and how many are the musical terms which we Germans have adopted from the Italians! Poetry and music flourished at first precisely among the Greeks of Asia Minor, and prior to the ninth century B. C., about the middle of which Homer lived there, according to the not improbable statement of Herodotus (II. 53). Greek artists were employed by the Lydians, among whom music was likewise cultivated, so that the Greeks adopted the Lydian key from them. But Lydia was not merely dependent on Assyria to a greater or less extent, down to the close of the eighth century, but afterward maintained intimate relations with Babylon,” etc. Concerning the ψαλτήριον or Pesanterin, compare, in addition, the remark of Kranichfeld: “It may be observed, in relation to the objection that the ψαλτήριον is mentioned only by later writers among the Greeks, that the argumentum ex silentio raised, on that ground, against the earlier existence of that instrument, is sufficiently met by the probable representation of a ψαλτήριον on the monuments of Sennacherib, cf. Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, c. 20, p. 454. The persons who there welcome the Assyrian leaders with dances, songs, and plays, are preceded by five musicians, three of whom carry harps with many strings, a fourth has a double flute, and the fifth is furnished with an instrument winch Layard compares to the Santer of Egypt=פסנתרין (Gesenius, Thes., p. 1116). It consists of a number of strings which are stretched on a resonant frame, and corresponds to the description of the psalterium furnished by Augustine (on Psalms 32:0).”
Note 3.—With reference to the feasibility of reconciling the religious-ethical representations of this book with the hypothesis of its origin during the captivity, see Hengstenberg, p. 137 et seq.; Hävernick, Neue krit. Unterss., p. 32 et seq.; and Oehler in Tholuck’s Literarischer Anzeiger, 1843, Nos. 49 and 50, and particularly p. 388 et seq. The dependence of Daniel’s angelology on that of Zoroaster has been frequently asserted, since it was first stated by Gesenius, Bertholdt, Winer, and others; but Martin Haug, of Bombay, decidedly advocates the opinion, in his Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of the Parsees (Bombay, 1862), that the religious development of Judaism was independent of that of Parseeism, without, on that account, attempting to deny to them a common source, as an explanation of their manifold analogies (compare Ausland, 1862, p. 937; 1865, p. 1079 et seq.). The simple circumstance that a scholar so thoroughly acquainted with the Zend religion and literature, should hold to this opinion, may serve as a warning to receive with caution such views of their relations as are above referred to. The opinion of Max Müller, as expressed in his philosophical meditations on religion (Chips from a German Workshop, London, 1867), agrees fully with that of Haug; while E. Renan (De l’ Origine du Language, p. 230; Vie de Jesus, p. 15 s.) and Fr. Spiegel (Genesis und Avesta, in Ausland, 1868, No. 12 et seq.) assert a direct adoption from the religious writings of the ancient Persians of many theological and angelological conceptions by the later Judaism after the time of the Achæmenidæ. Hilgenfeld also (Das Judenthum im persischen Zeitalter in the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie, 1866, No. 4, p. 398 et seq.) and Alex. Kohut, Ueber die jüdische Angelologie und Dämonologie in ihrer Abhängigkeit vom Parsismus (taken from the Zeitschrift der deutsch-morgenl. Gesellsch., Vol. iv, No. 3) Leipsic, 1866, advocate the same view. But the sober investigations of men of the most diverse tendencies agree in reaching substantially the same result, namely, proving that at most a few names of angels remain to a profounder and more unprejudiced criticism, as elements of the Jewish angelology which are really derived from Parseeism, and that even these names are not chiefly of Aryan, but of Shemitic and even genuinely Hebrew origin—as is especially true of those found in Daniel (Michael and Gabriel). Compare Reuss (Histoire de la théologie Chrétienne au Siéclé apostolique, I., 92 et seq.), Dillmann (Jahrbb. für deutsche Theologie, 1858, p. 419 et seq.), Hävernick (Vorll. über die Theologie des A. Titus , 2 d ed., published by H. Schultz, p. 92 et seq.; 118 et seq.); Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, I. 281, 291 et seq.); A. Köhler (Nachexilische Propheten, II. 23 et seq.); Haneberg (in Reusch, Theol. Literaturbl., 1867, No. 3, p. 72). See the exegetical notes on Daniel 8:10; Daniel 8:15, and compare the instructive treatise of Erich Haupt, Ueber die Berührungen des A. Ts. mit der Religion Zarathustra’s (Treptow on the Rhine, 1867), which argues positively against the adoption from Parseeism of any religious conceptions whatever in the canonical portions of the O. T.
§ 8. Authenticity of the book (Continued)
d. Examination of the internal evidences against its genuineness, based on
The charges raised against the book of Daniel, on the ground of asserted contradictions of the accounts of extra-biblical history respecting the Babylonian and Medo-Persian kingdoms, are either historico-social in their nature, or politico-historical. They relate either to the antiquities of those kingdoms, or to their chronological relations and changes of dynasties.
1. The former class of difficulties, namely those affecting the social progress and customs of the times, lie within the domain of the history of civilization and morals. They arise from the deportment of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar toward the oneirocritical magicians on the one hand, and toward Daniel on the other (Daniel 2:5); further, from the colossal size and ugliness of the image which was to be worshipped, and from the cruelty of the punishment imposed on the friends of Daniel, because of their refusal to obey the decree which required such worship (Daniel 3:0); from the lycanthropy of Nebuchadnezzar, as not substantiated by extra-biblical historians (Daniel 4:0); from the alleged incredibility of the statement that king Darius issued a decree ordaining that divine honors should be paid exclusively to him; and from the assumed funnel-like shape of the lion’s den into which Daniel was thrown (Daniel 6:0). All of these difficulties are merely such in appearance. An observer who understands the spirit of the ancient as well as the modern Oriental despotism (of which the case of Theodore of Abyssinia, with his whims and fluctuating views, may serve as a late example), and especially who at the same time remembers the tendency of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian rulers to syncretistic arbitrariness and mingling of religions, will not deem it strange that Nebuchadnezzar should address to his magicians the unreasonable demand, not merely to interpret his dream, but even to recall its contents, which were forgotten by him, and that he should condemn them to death when they failed to satisfy his demands, while he rewarded Daniel, who accomplished the task, with the highest honors and emoluments. Such an observer will not be surprised to find the king, in chap 3, directing a monstrous idolatrous demonstration against the God of Daniel and his friends, and consigning the latter to so glorious a martyrdom; nor to behold, in chap 5, the striking contrast between the blasphemous insults and excesses of Belshazzar at the first, and the favor afterward bestowed by him on Daniel; nor yet, in chap 6, the similar change in the disposition of Darius as revealed in his conduct. That, by Divine retribution, the arbitrary and passionate temper of Nebuchadnezzar should develop into madness, and result in the infliction, during several years, of a mental disorder of the most terrible nature, is no more surprising than are any of the various cases of lycanthropy recorded in the annals of psychiatry, among which that of the Armenian king, Tiridates 3., is the most familiar and historically important. Traces of this awful episode in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, although not found in other historians of ancient times, may yet be shown with sufficient clearness in the Babylonian Berosus and in Abydenus (see note 1). With regard to the less important details which have excited criticism, as being legendary or at least suspicious, it may be observed that the description of the idol in the plain of Dura (Daniel 3:1 et seq.), which reached a height of sixty cubits, corresponds substantially with the descriptions transmitted through other channels of uncouth colossal images, such as the coarse and excessively fanciful art of ancient Oriental heathendom was accustomed to erect to the honor of its gods. The non-appearance of Daniel and the other magians before Belshazzar (Daniel 5:7) is sufficiently explained by the Oriental custom of removing the priests from office with every change of rulers. The decree of Darius, limiting the ascription of divine honors during an entire month to himself (Daniel 6:8 et seq.) agrees fully with the statements of Herodotus, Xenophon, and Plutarch, respecting the deifying of kings among the ancient Medes and Persians. And finally, the designation of the lion’s den by גּוֹב or גֻּבָּא (Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:18) does not necessitate the view that it was “a funnel-shaped cavern or cistern,” since the term in question is applied in the Syriac, not merely to dungeons, but also especially to the dens or cages of wild beasts (cf. the exegetical remarks on the several passages cited in this connection).
2. The following difficulties and alleged contradictions or anachronisms belong to the domain of political history and chronology:
(1) According to the statement in Daniel 1:1, that “In the third year of Jehoiakim came (בָּא) Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem and besieged it,” our book seems to place the first siege and capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar as early as the third year of Jehoiakim. This contradicts Jeremiah 25:1; Jeremiah 25:9 (cf. Jeremiah 46:2; Jeremiah 36:9), where the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar before Jerusalem appears to be placed in the fourth or even the fifth year of Jehoiakim’s reign; and it also conflicts with Daniel 2:1, where the second year of Nebuchadnezzar is given as the time in which Daniel interpreted the monarch’s dream, and thus attained to great distinction, whereas the conquest of Judæa and the transportation of Daniel and his friends, together with other prisoners, to Babylon, and the instruction of the Hebrew youth (according to Daniel 1:5; Daniel 1:18) during three years in the wisdom of the Chaldæans, all transpired several years before. The only adequate solution of this two-fold difficulty is found in the hypothesis, that Daniel 1:1 does not relate the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar before Jerusalem, but merely his departure for that place, or the beginning of his march (סּוֹא as in Jonah 1:3; cf. Genesis 14:5; Genesis 45:7; Daniel 11:13; Daniel 11:17; Daniel 11:28); and also that the designation of Nebuchadnezzar as king, in Daniel 1:1; Daniel 1:3; Daniel 1:5, is to be regarded as proleptical, his position at that time being that of a military leader and representative of his father Nabopolassar, while his accession to the throne was delayed about two years later. From this hypothesis results an interval of more than three years between the removal of Daniel to Babylon, and his elevation to the headship of the magian caste (see note 2).
(2) According to Daniel 5:0, Belshazzar seems to be the successor, or, at least, one of the successors, of his father Nebuchadnezzar on the throne of Babylon, while Daniel 5:30 represents him as the last ruler before the introduction of the Medo-Persian dynasty. The extra-biblical authorities, however, mention four kings of his family who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar (Evil-merodach, Neriglissar, Laborasoarchad, and Nabonidus), none of whom bears the name of Belshazzar. Of the two methods possible for the solution of this difficulty, the one identifies Belshazzar with Evil-merodach, and the other with Nabonidus. The former is the more probable one, because the relation of Daniel 6:1, to Daniel 5:30 by no means requires that the subjection of Babylon to the Medo-Persians should have immediately followed on the death of Belshazzar; and further, because Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned as the father of Belshazzar in Daniel 7:0, while the profane sources call Evil-merodach a son of Nebuchadnezzar, but not Nabonidus, the last Chaldæan king (see note 3). Moreover, the two years of the reign of Evil-merodach, mentioned in Jeremiah 52:31, may be easily reconciled with the statement in Daniel 8:1, that a vision was seen by Daniel “in the third year of Belshazzar;” for it might be said that Belshazzar-Evil-merodach reigned two years even if he lived until about the middle of his “third year.”29
(3) It is said that Daniel 6:1 implies that the monarch who overthrew the Chaldæan dynasty, and established the Medo-Persian rule in Babylon, was not Cyrus, but “Darius the Mede.” But since, according to Daniel 6:29 (cf. Daniel 1:21), the author had knowledge of Cyrus as the successor of this Darius, there can be no doubt that by the latter name he designates the Cyaxeres 2 of Xenophon, who was the son of Astyages and uncle of Cyrus, and consequently the sovereign whose reign, according to Æschylus, Xenophon, Abydenus, and Josephus, intervened between the last Median king Astyages and the founding of the Persian Achæmenidean dynasty by Cyrus. It follows, that the narrative of Herodotus, which relates that Cyrus defeated his Median grandfather Astyages near Pasargardæ, and became his immediate successor, has its source in an inexact or incomplete tradition, from whence the father of history derived his facts in relation to the Persian as well as the Babylonian kingdom (see note 4).
Note 1.—“ With reference to the mention of diseases and the actual occurrence of lycan-thropy, compare generally Bartholinus, De morbis biblicis, c. 13; Rich. Mead, Medica sacra, c. 7; J. D. Müller, Diss. de Nebuchadnezaris μεταμορφώσει ad Dan., 100:4., Lips., 1747; Freind, Historia medic, p. 380 (where the important testimony of Oribasius, physician to the emperor Julian, is given, showing the occurrence of this disease in his time); Forestus, Observationes medic., Daniel 10:15; Welcker, Allgem. Zeitschrift für Psychiatrie, vol. ix., No. 1; Trusen, Sitten, Gebräuche, und Krankheiten der alten Hebräer, 1853; Reil, Rhapsodien über die Anwendung der psychischen Kurmethode auf Geisteszerrüttungen, pp. 296, 336 et seq. The last work contains many interesting examples of insanity, in which the patients believed themselves transformed into dogs, wolves, bears, cats, etc., and were able to imitate the calls of those animals with surprising exactness. Important historical examples of this character are: Lycaon (Pausan., Daniel 8:2; Ovid, Metam., I. 216); king Tiridates III. of Armenia, the persecutor of Gregory the illuminator about A. D. 300 (Moses of Chorene, Hist. Armeniaca, l. III., ed. Whiston, p. 256 et seq.; M. Samueljan, Bekehrung Armeniens durch Gregor. Illuminator, nach national-historischen Quellen bearb., Vienna, 1844; S. C. Malan, The Life and Times of S. Gregory the Illuminator, the Founder and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church, Translated from the Armenian, London, 1868;—cf. the Basle Missions-Magazin, 1832, p. 530); Latronianus, a persecutor of Christians in the time of Diocletian, who was temporarily bestialized because of his cruelty (see the acts of the martyrs, s. vv., Epictetus and Astion, in the Acta Sanct., Jul., T. Daniel 2:0 :p. 538); Simon of Tournay, an Aristotelian philosopher in Paris about A. D. 1200 (who is said to have received a roaring voice like a beast, in punishment of a blasphemy publicly uttered against Christ, Moses, and Mohammed; see Schröckh, Kirchengesch., vol. 26, p. 380); Simon Brown, an English dissenting minister, 1733 (who, while in a melancholy state of mind, believed himself, during a considerable period, to be changed into a beast, although in other respects he was rational and in the possession of his faculties; see Stäudlin and Tzschirner, Archiv, etc., vol. III., p. 562 et seq.); a prince of Condé, who at times believed himself transformed into a dog (Schubert, Symbolik des Traums, 3d ed., p. 166); an English boy at Norwich, about A. D. 1603, whose disease assumed the form of lycanthropy (Reitz, Historie der Wiedergeborenen, 2.56 et seq.). Compare also the fabulous accounts of were wolves, i.e., persons who rage with wolfish cruelty and rapacity against their fellow men, in Görres, Die Christl. Mystik, vol. IV. 2, p. 472 et seq.; also Waitz, Anthropologie der Naturvölker, vol. II, p. 180, concerning the belief of the African nations in the disease marafilnas, i.e., lycanthropy. Among the profane testimonies to the lycanthropy of Nebuchadnezzar, that of the inscriptions on the Babylonian monuments (which, so far as they date back to that king, indicate the interruption of his great building enterprises during a considerable period; see Rawlinson, Bampton Lectures, V., p. 166 and p. 440, n. 29), is not sufficiently positive and clear. The statement of Berosus (in Josephus, Contra Apion. I. 20): Ναβουχοδονόσορος μὲν οὖνμετὰ τὸ ἄρξασθαι τοῦ προειρημένου τέχους, ἐμπεσὼν εἰς�, μετηλλάξατο τὸν βίον, βεβασιλευκὼς ἔτη τεσσεράκοντα τρί, is likewise very indefinite, and leaves room for the opinion that it refers to a disease not at all unusual in its character, which immediately preceded the death of Nebuchadnezzar (although the mention of the ἀῤῥωστία which preceded his death can hardly be accidental and without significance with Berosus, whose narrative in other cases is always as concise as possible. Cf. Kranichfeld on the passage, p. 204 et seq.). The Chaldæan tradition concerning the wonderful close of Nebuchadnezzar’s life, as reported by Abydenus (in Euseb., Prœpar. Evang., IX. 41; cf. Chron. Armen., I., p. 59), contains, on the other hand, a positive although frequently clouded and distorted testimony to that fact. It states that Nebuchadnezzar, after concluding his wars of conquest, “ascended to the summit of his royal palace, where he was seized by one of the gods” (ὡς, ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ τὰ βασιλήϊα, κατασχηθείη θεῷ ὅτεῳ δή). “With a loud voice he said, ‘I, Nebuchadnezzar, foretell your misfortune, which neither Bel, my ancestor, nor the queen Beltis, can prevail on the fates to avert! The Persian mule shall come, being in league with your own gods, and shall bring you into bondage; the Mede, the pride of the Assyrians, shall be his helper! Would that a whirlpool or a flood (χάρυβδίν τινα ἢ θάλασσαν) might sweep him previously away and utterly destroy him! Or that, at any rate, he might be driven by other ways through the desert, where there are neither cities nor human paths, but where only wild beasts and birds roam about—that he might wander in solitude among rocks and precipices! And would that I had met a better end before this knowledge was imparted to me!’ After this prophecy he immediately became invisible” (Ὁ μὲν θεσπίσας παραχρῆμα ἠφάνιστο). We have here, clearly, a specifically Chaldæan version of the same tradition, whose original form appears in Daniel 4:0. The prophecy respecting the impending overthrow of the Chaldæan kingdom appears to have been taken from the mouth of the Hebrew prophet, and ascribed to the great king himself, as being suddenly overwhelmed by the gods (as a מְשֻׁגָּע, cf. Jeremiah 29:26; 2 Kings 9:11). The banishment of the king while controlled by a bestializing mania is represented as a mysterious disappearance; and the popular tradition seeks to escape the typical allusion to the humiliation and punishment of the proud Chaldæan kingdom, which is conveyed in that insanity—in that disgraceful, though temporary, degradation of its ruler, by invoking the fate which actually came upon Nebuchadnezzar, on the head of the Medo-Persian, the hated national foe. The popular wit of the ancient Orientals, which delighted to ridicule Cyrus as the ΙΙέρσης ἡμίονος (cf. Herodotus 1:55, 91), may have been not altogether without influence in bringing about this peculiar perversion, or rather reversal, of the original prophecy, as is suggested by a comparison of Abydenus, as quoted above, with Daniel 5:21 (עֲרָדִין, “a wild ass”). Compare Hengstenb., p. 107 et seq.; Hävernick, Neue krit. Unterss., p. 52 et seq.; Kranichfeld, pp. 203–209; Pusey, p. 294 et seq.
Note 2.—The most simple solution of the historical difficulty in Daniel 1:1, and that which has the greatest exegetical support, has been indicated above. It may be found in Perizonius, Origines Ægyptiacœ et Babylonicœ, II., p. 430, and more recently in Hengstenberg, p. 54 et seq.; Delitzsch, p. 275; Keil, Einl., § 133, p. 440; and substantially, in Kranichfeld, p. 16 et seq. (but cf. infra, No. 2). It regards the verb בּוֹא as not designating the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar before Jerusalem, but as merely indicating his departure from Babylon (for the feasibility of this interpretation cf. the proof-texts cited above, to which may be added Numbers 32:6; Isaiah 7:24; Isaiah 22:15, and many others; see Gesenius and Dietrich under בוא, No. 3). Further incidents in the campaign, whose beginning is thus indicated are: the victory of Nebuchadnezzar over Pharaoh Necho near Carchemish, or Circesium, on the Euphrates (an event which, according to Jeremiah 46:2, transpired in the course of the fourth year of Jehoiakim); the pursuit of the defeated Egyptians by the Chaldæans in a southerly direction (Jeremiah 46:5 et seq.); the arrival of the victor before Jerusalem, and the taking of the city, which followed soon afterwards (2 Kings 24:1 et seq.; 2 Chronicles 34:6 et seq.), and probably near the close of the fourth year of Jehoiakim, with which was connected the first deportation of captive Jews, and of a portion of the vessels of the temple to Babylon. In the following year, and some time after the departure of the Chaldæans, the fast was proclaimed, of which Jeremiah remarks (Jeremiah 36:9) that it was observed in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim. It may therefore, in analogy with Zechariah 8:19, be regarded as an anniversary of mourning, commemorative of the fall of the city in the preceding year, instead of being considered a prophylactic, penitential fast, designed, to secure deliverance from the impending danger of Nebuchadnezzar’s arrival, and thus as similar to those described in Joel 1:14; 2 Chronicles 20:3-4, etc. (as Hitzig, Schmeidler, and others, hold). This simple and natural combination of events is contradicted by no statement whatever, in relation to the history of Jehoiakim and his time, whether found in this or any other prophetical or historical book. The passages Daniel 1:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:6 (Heb. text) do not actually state that Jehoiakim was carried to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar after his capture of Judæa; but if this were the case, their statements would by no means conflict with the account in 2 Kings 24:1, according to which Jehoiachin became the tributary of Nebuchadnezzar during three years after his first subjugation, and afterwards revolted from him anew. Neither the brief sketch in Chronicles, nor the subject of Daniel, which is not specially concerned with the fortunes of that king, would require the mention of the return of Jehoiakim to his capital soon after his transportation (see on Daniel 1:2); and in view of his undecided character, his revolt, after three years of vassalage, may be readily accepted, despite the fact that he had felt the proud Chaldæan’s power but a few years before. Nor will it be surprising that 2 Kings 24:11 et seq. relates another taking of Jerusalem and deportation of many Jews so soon after the first as the reign of king Jehoiakim or Jeconiah, if we regard this second deportation (6–7 years later than the first; cf. 2 Kings 23:36, with 2 Kings 24:8) as the punishment which Nebuchadnezzar was compelled to inflict on the Jews, because of Jehoi I akim’s revolt, but which was not executed until some time after it was decided on, and thus affected the son and successor, before he had attained his majority, instead of crushing the father (cf. 2 Chronicles 36:8-10). Finally, the designation of Nebuchadnezzar as king while engaged in his campaign against Necho and the allied Jehoiakim (Daniel 1:1),—while the successful interpretation of the dream by Daniel, which transpired, according to Daniel 2:1, in the second year of that monarch’s reign—must date at least three years later, involves no contradiction whatever, if we regard the title in the first instance as proleptical. There would be no impropriety in applying it to him as joint ruler with his father and leader of his armies, even during the life of Nabopolassar,—especially if we remember that Berosus (in Josephus, contra Apion., I. 19) makes Nebuchadnezzar to achieve his great victories over the “satraps” of Egypt, Cœle-Syria, and Phœnicia, before the death of the aged Nabopolassar, and to hasten to Babylon to assume the sole government, only after receiving the tidings of his father’s death (B. C. 605 or 604, and soon after the first capture of Jerusalem). Jeremiah 25:1, also, in harmony with Daniel 1:1, when correctly understood, represents the fourth year of Jehoiakim as the first of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, inasmuch as he regards the leader of the Chaldæans as the king of Babylon after his victory over Necho, whether he might be for the time the commander-in-chief and co-regent, and also the prospective successor to the throne, or not. But a comparison of Jeremiah 52:31 with 2 Kings 25:27 shows clearly that this prophet was by no means unacquainted with the correct chronology of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (beginning with the death of Nabopolassar). This method of reconciling Daniel 1:1, with all the remaining data affecting the chronology, is so satisfactory in all respects, that we are led to reject every other combination as decidedly as we do the course of the negative criticism which finds the statements of this book in general to conflict with history, and which, therefore, despairs especially of being able to reconcile the passage Daniel 1:1 with the statements in Jeremiah, Kings, and Chronicles (Bertholdt, Kirmss, Bleek, De Wette, Hitzig, etc.). Among the methods of arrangement which differ from ours we reckon:
(1) The account of Josephus (Ant.,X. 6, 1), which, in view of 2 Kings 24:1 et seq., admits indeed that Nebuchadnezzar possessed all the territory west of the Euphrates after his victory over Necho, but fixes the conquest of Judæa fully three or four years later (in the 8th year of Jehoiakim); a perversion of history that resulted probably from a misunderstanding of Jeremiah 22:18-19, and against which Keil and Thenius (on 2 Kings in many places), Hitzig, Graf, Hasse (De prima Nebuchadnezaris adv. Hierosol. expeditione, Bonnæ, 1856), and others have justly declared themselves.
(2) The view of Kranichfeld, who does not date the capture of Jerusalem three or four years after Nebuchadnezzar’s victory near Carchemish, but still one year later, or “not earlier than the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim,” because that author believes himself compelled to regard the fast mentioned in Jeremiah 36:9, as having preceded the fall of the city; a hypothesis which is opposed by the fact that it fixes the transportation of Daniel and other Jewish youths to Babylon, and the beginning of their three years’ course of instruction in the wisdom of the Chaldæans, before the capture of Jerusalem—thus involving an inherent improbability, and conflicting directly with Daniel 1:2 et seq. (cf. the exegetical remarks on that place).
(3) The assumption of Kleinert (in the Dorpater theolog. Beiträgen, II. 128 et seq.); Hoffmann (Die 70 Jahre des Jeremia und die 70 Jahrwochen Daniels, Nuremberg, 1836, p. 16 et seq.; Weissagung und Erfüllung,I. 297 et seq.), Hävernick (Neue krit. Unterss., p. 62 et seq.), Oehler (in Tholuck’s Literar. Anzeiger, 1849, p. 395 et seq.), and Zündel (p. 20 et seq.), that Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar a year before the battle of Carchemish. What Keil has remarked (Einl., § 133, p. 440) will suffice to refute this view: “This combination is untenable, because it cannot be reconciled with Jeremiah 25:0. In that passage the fourth year of Jehoiakim is mentioned, beyond the possibility of being mistaken, as marking an epoch for the theocracy and for all the nations of Western Asia, in which the Lord would bring Nebuchadnezzar and all the tribes of the north against Jerusalem, that the land of Judæa might become a wilderness and its inhabitants, together with all neighboring nations, be subjected to Babylon during seventy years (Jeremiah 25:9-11). So emphatic a prophecy in the mouth of Jeremiah would be utterly incomprehensible, if Jerusalem had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim been made tributary a year previously, while in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which the prophet so strongly emphasizes (Jeremiah 25:3 et seq.), nothing of moment had transpired, and even later in the reign of Jehoiakim nothing had occurred beyond his revolt from the Chaldæans some years afterward, by which he became involved in hostilities with bands of Chaldæans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites (2 Kings 24:2). But this view becomes wholly untenable from the consideration that, at a time when the Egyptian king, who had advanced towards Carchemish at the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign, was doubtless in possession of that fortress, Nebuchadnezzar could not possibly pass by this hostile force and proceed to Judæa, while exposing Babylonia to so powerful a foe. But had this been possible, and, incredible as it is, had it actually occurred, it is certain that Pharaoh-Necho would not have permitted him quietly to operate in the rear of his army and overcome Jehoiakim his vassal; nor would Nebuchadnezzar, after conquering Jerusalem, have returned to capture Carchemish and defeat his principal enemy, instead of proceeding to Egypt, and making an easy conquest of the country, which was deprived of its defenders. But aside from this, the method under consideration is irreconcilable with the extracts from Berosus furnished by Josephus (Ant. X. 11, 1; contra Ap., I. 19).” Views exactly similar are expressed by Hitzig, p. 3, and Kranichfeld, p. 17 et seq.
Note 3.—Is the Belshazzar of Daniel 5:0. the same as Evil-merodach, the son and immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar, or is he identical with Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king prior to the Persian invasion? The latter alternative, which is advocated by Jerome (Comm. in Dan., 5:1) and more recently by Hengstenberg, Hävernick (in his Commentary), Auberlen, Keil, and in substance also by Pusey (with the distinction, however, that he considers Belshazzar as the son and co-regent of Nabonidus), is supported (1) by the fact that according to Herodotus, 1:191, and Xenophon, Cyrop., VII. 5, 15 et seq., Babylon was taken by the Persians while a luxurious banquet was in progress, and (2) by the circumstance that Herodotus, 1:188, calls Labynetus (=Nabonidus) a son of Nebuchadnezzar, with which the introduction of the queen-mother in Daniel 5:10 (possibly the Nitocris of Herodotus, or the Amuheer of Alexander Polyhistor), and the express mention of Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar in Daniel 5:11, would seem to correspond. But the following considerations militate against this view, and favor the alternative which identifies Belshazzar with Evil-merodach: (1) Both the Babylonian historians, Berosus (in Josephus, Ant., X. 11, 1, and contra Apion., I. 20) and Abydenus (in Euseb., Prœpar. Ev., IX. 41, and Chron. Arm., p. 28, ed. Mai) agree, in contrast with Herodotus, in representing Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king, as a usurper and throne-robber of non-royal descent, who conspired with a number of others to deprive Laborasoarchad, the youthful grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, of his throne and life, and who afterward fell into the hands of the Persians, not at the taking of Babylon by Cyrus during a royal banquet, but some time after the capture of his capital. They relate that, having been defeated in the open field, he threw himself into the fortress of Borsippa, where he capitulated to Cyrus after the fall of Babylon, by whom he was exiled to Carmania (or, as Abydenus states, he was made governor of that province). That these traditions of Berosus and Abydenus by no means owe their origin to a boastful tendency, representing the Chaldæan national interests in a one-sided manner, but as certainly comprehend a part of the truth, as do the accounts of Herodotus and Xenophon, has been shown by Kranichfeld, as cited above, in the clearest and profoundest manner.30 The identity of Daniel’s Belshazzar with Evil-merodach is confirmed (2) by the repeated mention of Nebuchadnezzar as his father (אב, Daniel 5:11; Daniel 5:13; Daniel 5:18; Daniel 5:22), which could, in every case, be applied to a more distant relationship, e. g., grandfather and grandson, only by a forced interpretation;31 and further (3) by the circumstance that, according to Berosus (Josephus, as above), Evil-merodach also died a violent death, having been murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar (cf. Daniel 5:30). No arguments against this identification can be drawn (a) from the relation of Daniel 5:30 to Daniel 6:1—since these passages are not necessarily connected (see exeget. remarks); nor (b) from Daniel 7:1, where a “third year of Belshazzar is mentioned, while Berosus and the Ptolemaic canon limit the reign of Evil-merodach to two years—since these latter authorities may have slightly postdated the years of that reign, i.e., may have included the first year, as being incomplete, in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar; and in fact the canon of Syncellus appears to assign three years to the reign of Evil-merodach; nor (c) from the prophetic descriptions in Isaiah 21:5, and Jeremiah 51:39, which predict that Babylon should fall in its dissipation, but by no means assert that it should meet this fate while a banquet or carousal was in progress; nor finally (d) from Jeremiah 52:31, and 2 Kings 25:27, where the immediate sucecssor of Nebuchadnezzar is called Evil-merodach, as in profane authorities;—for the anomalous name in Daniel 5:0 may be readily explained on the ground of the very general custom of Oriental sovereigns to bear several names (cf. M. v. Niebuhr Gesch. Assurs und Babels, p. 20 et seq., where reference is made to Sargon=Shalmaneser,32 Asshurdanipal=Kineladan, and many others), and nothing is more probable than that Evil-merodach bore, in addition to his proper name, a title containing the name of the god Bel, which title was similar to the appellative that Daniel himself, according to Daniel 1:5, was compelled to assume. And it is probable that the prophet designedly avoided the real name of the king, when writing of Evil-merodach, on account of that homonymy (see on Daniel 5:1; Daniel 5:12). Beyond this, the fact that the name Belshazzar occurs as belonging to Chaldæan kings is substantially established by the notice deciphered on the cylinders of Mugheir by Oppert and Rawlinson, which refers to a “Belsarussur, son of Nabomit or Nabumtuk” (see Zeitschrift der deutsch morgenl. Gesellsch., viii:598; Athenœum, 1854, p. 341); although the identity of this Bclsarussur with the Belshazzar of Daniel, which is asserted by Rawlinson and Pusey (Daniel the Prophet, p. 402), appears to be highly improbable, since this son of Nabonidus cannot be shown to have been either of royal rank nor descended from Nebuchadnezzar. This method, which identifies Belshazzar with Evil-merodach, is supported by Marsham (Canon chron., p. 596 et seq.), Hofmann (Die 70 Jahre des Jeremia, etc., p. 44 et seq.), Hävernick (Neue krit. Unterss., p. 71 et seq.), Oehler (in Tholuck’s Anzeiger, as above, p. 398), Hupfeld (Exercitat. Herodot., spec. II., Rintel, 1843, p. 46), Schulze (Cyrus der Grosse, in the Stud. u. Krit., 1853, No. 3), M. v. Niebuhr (Geschichte Assurs und Babels, Berlin, 1857), Röckerath (Bibl. Chronologie, Munster, 1865, p. 123), Zündel (Krit. Unterss., p. 29 et seq.), Kranichfeld (p. 24 et seq.), Füller (Der Prophet Daniel, p. 12), A. Scheuchzer (Assyrische Forschungen, in Heidenheim’s Vierteljahrsschrift, etc., Vol. IV., No. 1), Kliefoth (p. 146 et seq.), and others.33
Together with the hypothesis of Pusey, already referred to, we are compelled to reject that indicated by Hofmann (Die 70 Jahre, etc., p. 44) and adopted by Delitzsch (p. 278) and by Ebrard (Die Offenb. Joh., p. 55), which identifies Belshazzar with Laborasoarchad, the nephew of Evil-merodach and son of Neriglissar (and by descent from him, or rather from his consort, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar). This view becomes untenable, because it is opposed by the expression, “Nebuchadnezzar, thy father” (אֲבוּךְ), in Daniel 5:11, by the brief reign of the child Laborasoarchad, extending, according to Berosus, only over nine months (cf. with this Daniel 8:1), and finally, by the impossibility of substituting Nebo-Shadrach for Laborasoarchad, and Bel-Shadrach for that; for, according to Isaiah 44:1, Bel and Nebo are not the same, but different divinities.
Note 4.—The identity of Darius the Mede (Daniel 6:1) with the Cyaxares of Xenophon, the son of Astyages and father-in-law of Cyrus, as well as his co-regent for a time, may be still more positively established than that of Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1) with Evil-merodach. Even the critical opponents of the book generally acknowledge the reign of such a Cyaxares, as intervening between the Median Astyages and the Persian Cyrus, and thereby recognize the truth of Xenophon’s account, despite its being found in the Cyropœdia—a work which so largely bears the character of a romance (Bertholdt, Gesenius, Von Lengerke, and even Hitzig; also Holtzmann, in the Deutsch-morgenl. Zeitschr., VIII. 3, 547, etc.). The existence of this second Cyaxares, as the immediate predecessor of Cyrus, is attested, not merely by numerous statements in the Cyropœdia (I. 4, 7; 5, 2, 5; III. 3, 20; VIII. 5, 19; 7, 1), but also by Æschylus in his ΙΙέρσαι, V. 762–65: Μῆδος γὰρ ἦν ὁ πρῶτος ἡγεμὼν στρατοῦ (Astyages), Ἄλλος δ̓ἐκείνου παῖς (Cyaxares) τὸδ̓ ἔργον ἤνυσε…Τρίτος δ̓ἀπ αὐτοῦ Κῦρος, εὐδαίμων�, etc., and by Abydenus, in Euseb., Prœp. Evang., IX. 14, where the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar concerning the fall of Babylon as quoted above (Note 1), declares with reference to Cyrus, that “the Mede, the pride of the Assyrians, should be his helper” (οὗ δὴ συναίτιος ἔσται Μήδης, τὸ Ἀσσυρίων αὔχημα), and in addition, by Josephus (Ant., X. 11, 4), who states that the Greeks gave “another name” to the son of Astyages—the Darius of Daniel—which was doubtless Κυαξάρης, as transmitted by Xenophon. Nor can the circumstance that Herodotus does not mention this Cyaxares, and makes Cyrus the immediate successor of his grandfather Astyages, reflect doubt on the existence of this intervening king, since the remark of Gesenius (Thesaur., p. 350) holds good of Herodotus as a writer of the earlier Assyrio-Babylonian and Medo-Persian history: “Solere Herodotum prœtermissis mediocribus hominibus ex longa rerum serie nonnisi unum alterumve memorare reliquis eminentiorem, ut aliunde constat et ipsa Babyloniœ historia docet, ex qua unius Nitocris reginœ mentionem injicit, reliquos reges usque ad Labynetum, ne Nebuchadnezare quidem excepto, silentio transit. ” The only real difficulty connected with the identification of the Median king in Daniel 6:0 and the Cyaxares of the Cyropœdia consists in the name Darius (דָּרְיָוֶשׁ) given to the former. It is to be observed, however, in relation to this circumstance:
(1) In general, the bearing of two names is no more remarkable among the Ancient Median and Persian kings, than among the Assyrio-Babylonian; for the two-fold language and literature which all these nations employed promoted the use of various names to designate one and the same person, as did also the custom of connecting honorable appellatives with the proper names of kings and other eminent persons; cf. note 3.
(2) The names דָּרְיָוֶשׁ=old Persic Dârjawus, and Κυαξάρης=the Pers. or Med. Uvakshatara, appear to be related in one sense, inasmuch as the former seems to be synonymous with “holder, or governor” (ἑρξείης, sceptrum tenens), and the latter with “direct,” or “actual ruler,” and the one to be of Persian origin, the other of Median (Delitzsch, p. 278).
(3) Both names, and especially the latter, appear to have been stereotyped royal honorary titles, and, accordingly, to have been conferred on various persons; for
(a.) Cyaxares I., the father of Astyages and ally of Nabopolassar and conqueror of Nineveh (639–604), bore this name.
(b.) Consequently it must have descended to Astyages himself; for, according to Daniel 9:1, the father of Darius the Mede was named Ahasuerus, the Hebrew form of which, אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, is analogous in sound with the Persian Uvakshatara, and also with the Greek Κυαξάρης. But further
(c.) Cyrus himself appears occasionally to have borne the name of Cyaxares or Uvakshatara as an honorary title; for, according to Holtzmann (Deutsch-morgenl. Zeitschrift, as above), an old Persian cuneiform inscription contains the names Cyrus (Qurus) and Uvakshatara in immediate consecution: “Ego Cyrus Cyaxares,” which may be synonymous with “Ego Cyrus imperator” (cf. Niebuhr, Gesch. Ass. und Bab., p. 214, note 4), but can scarcely be rendered by “Ego Cyrus Cyaxeres, sc. filius,” as Holtzmann suggests. Finally,
(d.) The name Cyaxares corresponds also to Xerxes, as is indicated by the Pers. form Kshjârcha or Kshjârsha, an abbreviation or contraction of Uvakshatara; also by the Hebrew אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ; and since a Persian king is designated, in Ezra 4:6, by the latter name, who can hardly be any other than Cambyses, in view of the chronology; and further, since the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther is the same as Artaxerxes I. Longimanus (instead of Xerxes, as most moderns since Scaliger hold), according to the opinion which prevails in the Septuagint, Josephus, and the ancients generally, and which has not been refuted,34 we may regard the name Cyaxares-Xerxes as being in fact a standing title, which descended from the last Median kings to all the Achæmenians. Similarly, the early Median kings seem generally to have borne the name Ajis-Dahaka or Ashdahak (i.e., dragon) since both Deioces, who founded Ecbatana about 700 (Herod. I. 102), and Cyaxares I., who, according to Berosus and Abydenus, was also called Astyages (i.e., Ashdahak), and also Astyages, the father of Cyaxares II, were designated by this title. The descent of names to others also finds its parallel among the rulers of other ancient Oriental kingdoms, e.g., of Armenia, Cappadocia, Pontus, and even among the Egyptians after Ptolemy (cf. Niebuhr, as above, pp. 32, 44, etc.). It might possibly be shown that the name Darius (Darjawus) belongs to this class of standing royal titles among the Persians, from the designation of the golden coins of that kingdom as Daries. This designation dates back, indeed, to Darius Hystaspis, according to Herodotus, IV. 166, but according to Suidas, Harpocration, and the scholiast on Aristophanes, Ecclesiaz., it traces its origin “to an older king of that name”—who, however, is not necessarily the same as Daniel’s Darius-Cyaxares (as also the reference in the Chron. Armen. of Eusebius, p. Dan 58: “Darius rex de regione depulit aliquantulum,” need not be applied to the Darius of this book). But in any case, it is clear from what has been stated, that the difference between the names Cyaxares and Darius does not compel us to assume a difference between the persons who are thus designated by Xenophon and Daniel, and that all other views become superfluous in proportion as the identity of the two becomes probable. Of such we mention that of M. v. Niebuhr (pp. 91, 223), which identifies Darius, Daniel 6:1 et seq., with the last Median king Astyages, who is said to have subjugated Babylon after the death of Belshazzar or Evil-merodach, and to have been deprived of his Median kingdom in the following year by Cyrus, so that Babylon again became independent; that of Kleinert (in the Dorp. Beiträge), which assumes that Darius the Mede was a natural son of Cyaxares I., and younger brother to Astyages, while Cyaxares II. was his nephew and shared in his government; and that of Schulze (Cyrus der Grosse, in the Stud. u. krit., as above, p. 685), which is also favored by Zündel (p. 36 et seq.), by which Cyaxares II., who is held to be identical with Darius the Mede, was not the son, but a younger brother of Astyages, and therefore a son of Cyaxares I. (Ahasuerus, Daniel 9:1), whom Xenophon erroneously transformed from a Cyaxarides into an Astyagides, by which error the great-uncle of Cyrus was converted into his uncle. The correct view is advocated by Josephus (supra), Jerome on Daniel 6:1, and among modems, Offerhaus (Spicilegia histor chronolog., lib. III., Gron., 1739, p. 265 ss.), Jehring (Bibliotheka Bremensis, VIII. 580 ss.), Gesenius (Thesaur., I. 349 et seq.), Winer (Realw., I. 250), Hengstenberg (p. 48 et seq.), Hävernick (Comm., p. 203 et seq.; Neue krit. Unterss., p. 74 et seq.), Keil (p. 457), Delitzsch (p. 278), Kranichfeld (p. 39 et seq.), Auberlen (pp. 16, 212), Füller (p. 141), and Kliefoth (p. 160 et seq.).35 In relation to he passage, Daniel 6:2 (the 120 satraps of Darius), which apparently conflicts with the view advocated above, see the exegetical remarks on that place, where also the effort of Ebrard (Die Offenb. Johannes erklärt, p. 55 et seq.), and several others, to identify Darius with the Nabonidus of Berosus will be sufficiently considered.
§ 9. Authenticity of the book (Concluded)
e. Examination of the internal reasons against its genuineness, which are based on its miracles and prophecies.
The narration of miracles and prophecies by Daniel is no more irreconcilable with the view that the book originated with him than are the historico-chronological difficulties which are asserted to be insuperable; for
(1) The miracles recorded in the first part, and particularly the preservation of the three men in the flames of the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:0), the appearance of the mysterious hand upon the wall (Daniel 5:5), and the deliverance of Daniel from the den of lions (Daniel 6:0), present no features whatever which fundamentally distinguish them from other miracles of the Old-Testament stage of revelation, or which mark them as the invention of a later period. On the contrary, the principal periods of Old-Testament development in its earlier stages, and especially the Mosaic period and that of Elijah and Elisha, that is to say, the primitive stages of the legal and prophetic periods, abound with incidents of a still more extraordinary character; e.g., the passages through the Red Sea and the Jordan; the pillar of cloud and of fire; the writing of the law on tables by the hand of God (Exodus 31:18; Exodus 32:16); the consuming of Nadab and Abihu by fire from the Lord (Leviticus 10:1); the feeding of Elijah at the brook Cherith by ravens (1 Kings 17:4); the destruction of Ahaziah’s captain and his fifty in the presence of Elijah (2 Kings 1:10 et seq.); Elisha’s raising of the dead and providing of food; the floating iron in the Jordan, etc. If the Divine economy of revelation required such miracles for the founding of the theocracy, for the attestation of its principal bearers and supporters, and for the inauguration of the prophetic institution, why should it not require them at this juncture, when the continuation of the theocracy was endangered by an oppressive heathendom, which was to be feared the more, because of its sensual, luxurious, and syncretistic character, and when a large portion of the people had yielded to these evil influences to an extent that threatened the utter absorption of the worship of Jehovah by the conglomerate religions of Babylonia and Medo-Persia? The critical epoch at the close of the captivity required—with an urgency almost equal to that which existed in the opening period of the Old Covenant—that Jehovah should display his power in the face of the proud world-kingdoms and their scornful rulers, who laid claim to Divine honors and even to deification, and that He should thus at once confirm the tottering faith of His followers by appearing as the same faithful and living God of the covenant, and crush the insolent daring and silly superstition of those tyrants, by demonstrating His right to rank as the King of all kings, and as the Lord of heaven and earth. Wonders of a similar character, although not so striking and extraordinary as those in Daniel, had been wrought by the principal representative of the prophetic office, as early as the age of Isaiah and Hezekiah, while Shalmaneser and Sennacherib were bringing like oppression and temptations to bear on the faithful ones among the people of God (e.g., the retrogression of the shadow on the dial of Ahaz; the healing of Hezekiah, etc.). Toward the close of the exile such Divine self-attestations were repeated, but in increased measure; and the agent was again the leading prophet of the time, who thus became the analogue and successor of Isaiah. These facts will be the less surprising when we reflect that it was now important to make a profound impression, not only on the members of the theocracy, but likewise on their oppressors, the heathen rulers; an impression such as the miracles of Moses were designed to produce on Pharaoh, and such as actually was produced in the case of the Chaldæan and Medo-Persian antitypes of Pharaoh—unless, indeed, the statements relating to repeated acts of homage rendered to Daniel’s God by Nebuchadnezzar and Darius (Daniel 2:46 et seq.; Daniel 3:28 et seq.; Daniel 4:31 et seq.; Dan 6:29 et seq.), and also that concerning the public recognition of the supreme divinity of Israel’s God by Cyrus in the edict of liberation (Ezra 1:1-4), which is supported by other historical authorities, are to be remanded to the realm of myths and fables—a conclusion which, in the latter instance, only the most radical hyper-criticism could reach. This comparison with the Mosaic period affords the only valid basis on which to form a proper estimate of the age of Daniel, with its peculiar national conditions and its miracles, since the sufferings and trials of that period, which assailed the faith of God’s children and threatened the further existence of the theocratic community, were met, like those of the captivity, on foreign soil, in the house of bondage and the land of misery. The sufferings, together with the inducements to idolatry, of the time of the Judges, were experienced by Israel on its own domestic soil; the afflictions of the period subsequent to the exile, e.g., in the times of Ezra and of the Maccabees, likewise befell God’s people while dwelling in the land of their fathers, and for that very reason were less dangerous to their religious and national life, than were the sufferings during either of those seasons of tribulation and persecution, which were undergone in “a strange land” (Psalms 137:4). It is, therefore, decidedly impertinent and unhistorical to allege, as do the opponents of the genuineness of this book, that it owes its origin solely to a supposed analogy between the periods of the captivity and of the Asmonæans, and to ascribe to this invented Daniel the design of exhibiting the humiliations experienced by Nebuchadnezzar and Darius Medus, in consequence of the Divine miracles and of the gracious strength and unyielding firmness of the theocratic witnesses to the truth, as a warning to Antiochus Epiphanes, the imitator of the religious tyranny of those monarchs. A certain typical analogy between Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus may readily be granted; but the fundamental difference, or rather contrast, between these two periods of persecution, that Israel suffered during the one while in captivity, and during the other while domiciled on its native soil, is none the less apparent. The inability of Israel to resist the oppressors with armed force, and also the necessity for God to interfere with his wonder-working power, resulted immediately from the conditions of the former instance; while in the latter case the nation could struggle for its country, its sanctuary, and its faith, and therefore required no other miracles than those of warlike enterprise and of devoted courage that even courted martyrdom, such as are described in the Maccabæan books (see note 1).
(2) Nor can the prophecies contained in this book be made to serve as witnesses against its genuineness; for, despite their visional form throughout (which, however, they bear in common with the former half of Zechariah, with numerous portions of Ezekiel, and even with extended sections of older prophetic books, e.g., Amos, Isaiah, etc.), they exhibit the general characteristic features of Old-Testament prophecy everywhere, since they relate to the conditions and requirements of the time, are steadily possessed with the idea of the triumph of God’s kingdom in its conflict with the world-powers, and develop this conflict in harmony with its growing intensity down to the time of the final Messianic triumph and judgment, in descriptions that become more and more minute as they progress. The book describes this Messianic period during which the Deliverer is to appear, as immediately connected with the resurrection of the just and the unjust to their final judgment (Daniel 12:1-3); and it assigns that event to a time that follows closely on the death of a raging Antichrist, whose description seems to be largely met in many traits belonging to Antiochus Epiphanes (see Daniel 11:21-45). But it does not follow from this that its author was a contemporary of that king, who described the historical events from the captivity to his time in the style of prophecy; since this feature is merely another illustration of the general law of prophetic visional perspective. At the farthest, certain of the more detailed predictions of the section (Daniel 10:11.) relating to the development of the world-powers after the fall of the Persian kingdom, might, as has already been observed (§ 1, note 2, and § 9), be regarded as the later additions of an apocalyptist living in the time of Antiochus, who sought to give a more definite form to the prophecy of Daniel. Aside from these external and unessential singularities, there is included in the prophetic contents of the book nothing connected with the development of the world-kingdoms until the advent of the Messiah, that might not have been foreseen and predicted by a Divinely-enlightened seer in the closing period of the captivity. Although such a seer had witnessed the supplanting of but one great world-kingdom by another, and although the extended range of observation which he enjoyed might reveal in the more distant political horizon but a single additional power in the progress of development; still nothing is easier to conceive than that, by the enlightening influence of the Holy Spirit, a long succession of world-monarchies, previous to Messiah’s kingdom, should open to his vision, and that he should symbolically represent this succession of powers by certain figures taken from the products of Babylonian and Medo-Persian culture and art, as in the visions of chap, Daniel 7:10. Nor do the attempts to reach a more exact chronological exposition of the development represented by the succession of these kingdoms, which are found more especially in the last four chapters of the book, involve any feature that does not suggest a parallel, on the one hand in the earlier prophets (e.g., Isaiah 7:8; Isaiah 23:15; Jeremiah 25:11 et seq.; 29 10), and on the other, in the mathematical studies of Babylonian astronomers, and the attempted application of these to (astrological) calculations of the future. The indefinite character which probably attached to these symbolico-chronological descriptions of the future in their original form, did not correspond to the historical succession of events as such, and may have been now and then removed by the hand of the later reviser in order to give place to features harmonizing more exactly with the facts. But, upon the whole, even these chapters contain far more prophecy of an ideally descriptive character than of detailed historical prediction, calculated to excite the suspicion of a composition subsequent to the event; and the book, therefore, bears the character of a work whose origin during the captivity, and whose inspired prophetic nature are decidedly more probable than its forged and simulated composition in the Maccabæan age. Especially is the mention by Peter of an anxious looking for the period in which the Messiah should appear (1 Peter 1:10-12), as a characteristic of the inspired prophets of the Old Covenant, more directly applicable to this work than to any other prophetical book in the canon (see notes 2 and 3).
Note 1.—In relation to the miracles of the time of Daniel, as demanded by the oppressed condition of Israel (see § 1, note 1), and especially the remarks of Hävernick there quoted, compare further, Hävernick, Neue krit. Unterss., p. Dan 85: “ Without such a revelation of Jehovah, the theocracy would have been involved in heathendom, or absorbed by it. Jehovah’s signs and wonders showed, despite the presence of the powerful world-kingdoms, that He still was the King of kings, and through them the question of the continued existence of the theocracy was really decided.” See ibid., p. 87, for the fact that the Asmonæan period, on the contrary, was characterized by an absence of miracles: “In the Maccabæan period the forsaking of the nation by God was manifested precisely in a manner that excluded miracles. The dead form remained to the people in petrified traditions; but the freshness and life of the old theocratic and prophetic spirit was wanting. This consciousness (that the ancient prophetism with its miraculous power must first be revived) finds expression in the monuments of that time with sufficient clearness. The first book of Maccabees has not a single reference to miracles; the disheartened age cannot even expect them,” etc. See, further, Kranichfeld, who observes, in correspondence with the parallelism above established between the miracles of Daniel and those of Moses and Elijah, “Precisely the periods of an especially hopeless condition of the theocracy are found to present suitable conditions for the intervention of the Scriptural miracle, designed, as it is, to strengthen the theocratic consciousness.” The assertion of Hitzig, that a susceptibility of the human mind and disposition for the usual influence of especially wonderful events, i.e., a faith in them, could not have been developed during the ‘night of the exile,” is without either historical or psychological support. If there was ever a night of discouragement for Israel, it was in the circumstances of the Egyptian period, as described in Exodus 6:9; Exodus 6:12; yet that period contained the germ of a far-reaching exaltation of faith and trust, such as is frequently found in intimate connection with resignation and a gloomy sense of both outward and spiritual oppression. The 137th Psalm, as an example of the actual current of theocratic thought, may serve to indicate, that during the “night of the exile” as well, complaints and tears might consist with an internal profound and glowing excitation which longs for the Divine Deliverer. It has already been remarked that the descriptions relating to the circumstances of the captivity, in the second part of Isaiah’s prophecies, represent an apparently hopeless demoralization of the religious and national spirit as coexistent with the strengthening and elevation of the theocratic consciousness by means of miracles. The extent to which the prophetic office of Ezekiel—the prophet of the opening period of the captivity—corresponds, in view of the conditions of the time, and of his personal traits, with that of Daniel, the prophet of the closing period, and also the significant contrast between them, are remarked by Hävernick, as cited above: “While the duty of influencing the captives during the exile through the word is devolved mainly on Ezekiel, everything in the position of Daniel unfolds a different field of activity, viz.: to defend the rights of the people of God in their relations to the heathen. This peculiar duty constituted a man of action (like Moses, Elijah, etc.), who opposed the superior Divine wisdom to the confused wisdom of men, and brought the deeds of victorious kings into contrast with the more powerful energy of God. His relation to Ezekiel is therefore complementary, and thus becomes a truly glorious testimony to the grace of God,” etc. Keil, pp. 459, 461, shows the injustice of the charge occasionally raised against the author (e.g., by Von Lengerke, Dan., p. LXII), that he is guilty of a “useless expenditure” or “needless accumulation” of miracles. As the really miraculous is confined to the three wonders mentioned in chapters 3, 5, and 6, there can be no reason for the assertion of such an accumulation of wonders or rage for miracles on the part of the author, especially when compared with the far greater number of the miracles of Moses or Elisha. But it has already been observed in § 4, note 2, as a characteristic peculiarity of Daniel’s method of narration, that he does not avoid the recognition of the Divine power and grace, as displayed in miracles, but rather avails himself of every opportunity afforded by his experience to call attention to the hand of Providence, and to place the events of his time in the light of a childlike believing and theocractical pragmatism. It must be reserved for the detailed exposition of the historical part to illustrate more specifically this peculiarity, in which the books of Esther and of Chronicles likewise participate, and which we would characterize as the theocratic chronicling style of the captivity and the succeeding period (see the observations on Daniel 3:0).
Note 2.—In opposition to the assertion of Lücke, that the apocalyptic character of our book as a prophecy, necessarily involves its pseudonymy, see above, § 1, note 2. It is important, in view of the assertion by Bleek (Einl., § 259), that “the especially definite character of the predictions extends precisely to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and no farther,” to observe the many obscure, indefinite, and ambiguous features which are found in the prophecies in the second part of the book, and which indicate with sufficient clearness that the position of the writer was that of a seer who looks forward, and whose descriptions are therefore only ideal, instead of that of a prophetic historian who recalls the past. Compare Kranichfeld, p. Dan 58: “The prophecies of the book of Daniel, in their descriptions, are never independent of the course of history as such, and nowhere bear the character of absolute, unconditioned, and therefore miraculous predictions. They do not contain a single paragraph (?) which, when viewed entirely apart from its fulfilment, might not be considered as merely the independent development of a theocratical thought, or complexity of thoughts, founded on historical facts. For this reason detailed descriptions of the course of future events are met with which do not fully correspond to the actual history; and this is as readily conceivable as it is natural. The critics have no difficulty about explaining away such differences, which become especially prominent on a comparison of the description of the last heathen kingdom and its final conformation in the times of the Seleucidæ and the Maccabees (Daniel 10:11); and the product of such arbitrary interpretation is ranged with the remaining occasional correspondences of the prophecy with the course of history, which are natural, because they have their basis in religious and ethical truth. The resultant caricature of Scriptural prophecy, similar to that presented in the later so-called apocalypse of Judaism, the Jewish Sibyls, the book of Enoch, the 4th book of Esdras, thus, in the end, becomes a certain prize.” The opinion here expressed is correct in all its essential features, and will bear modifying only in the single statement relating to the alleged unexceptionally ideal character of the descriptions of the future, contained in chapters 10 and 11 We regard it as exceedingly probable that in this connection, but only here, occasional vaticinia ex eventu were interpolated by a later hand, and doubtless by a theocrat of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; for the congruity between the prophecy and the facts by which it is fulfilled, is frequently more apparent than the fundamental law of Old-Testament prophecy appears to warrant (cf. § 1, note 2). None of the special predictions which are usually cited as being analogous to Daniel 10:11.—whether Isaiah 7:8 (possibly an interpolated passage), Isaiah 13:1-14; Isaiah 21:1-10; Jeremiah 25:11 et seq.; Jeremiah 29:10; or Ezekiel 24:25-27, etc.—do, in fact, compare with Daniel 11:0 in point of remarkable and often directly particularizing correspondence between prophecy and fulfillment; cf. Auberlen, p. 71 et seq.; Hengstenberg, p. 173 et seq.36 The decidedly eschatological character of Daniel 12:1 et seq., may be insisted on, as a special argument against the assertion that the book was written from the point of view which prevailed, in the Maccabæan age, and that, more particularly, its final chapters were composed “immediately after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes became known” (Bleek). That passage does not merely assign the beginning of the future Messianic period to the time immediately following the death of Antichrist (Daniel 11:45), but also its close, and may therefore have originated with a prophet belonging to an earlier age, who saw the anti-christian tyrant as a vision of the distant future (cf. similar perspective descriptions of the future, following upon gloomy prophecies of evil, in Amos 9:11 et seq.; Micah 7:12 et seq.; Isaiah 11:1 et seq., etc.), but can hardly have emanated from a designing forger of the troubled times of the Asmonæans. To employ this passage as a proof of the origin of the book under Epiphanes, or to postpone the composition of the closing chapters, 10–12, until even after the death of that tyrant, is to manifest a gross misapprehension of the nature of Messianic prophecy—its complex and apotelesmatic character, its necessary co-ordinating of the near and distant future in perspective vision (cf. Delitzsch, p. 286). Compare infra, on Daniel 7:8; Daniel 9:24 et seq.; and see the exegetical remarks in general, which may serve to explain in detail how difficult it is to adapt this book to the Maccabæan period, in the character of a pseudo-prophetical work.
Note 3.—With reference to the difficult, but, for the exegesis of this book, exceedingly important question, “Which world-kingdoms of the last pre-Christian time correspond to the four characteristic figures of Daniel’s monarchies (Daniel 2:31 et seq.; Daniel 7:2 et seq.)?” we offer the preliminary remark, that the interpretation by which the fourth kingdom represents the Roman supremacy—an interpretation which was accepted by Josephus and a majority of the church fathers, and which has become traditional and is in almost universal favor—does not to us seem to meet the sense of the prophet.37 Nor can we, with Ephraem Syrus, Hitzig, Ewald, Delitzsch, and others, find in this fourth kingdom the Macedonian or Grecian empire of Alexander the Great, together with the kingdoms of the Diadochi, which sprang from it; but instead, the divided nature of the fourth kingdom (Daniel 2:41) appears to us to symbolize only the empire of the Greek Diadochi after Alexander, while the kingdom of Alexander himself must be considered as the third. See above, § 3 [also § 10, Notes 3 and 4]; and compare the exegesis of Daniel 2:40 et seq. See ibid, in relation to the number four and its symbolical meaning as applied to the world-kingdoms. Meanwhile compare Kranichfeld, p. Dan 57: “It is an unquestionable peculiarity of Daniel that he attempts to cover this period by four of such kingdoms; but the general application by the Hebrews of the number four to extensions of time or space is equally unquestioned (cf. the four winds, Daniel 7:2; Daniel 8:8; the four quarters of the heavens, four ages of the world, four principal metals, etc.). If we therefore consider the composer of the book to have been a person who estimated the political condition of his time and its consequences understandingly and naturally, and at the same time clung decidedly and immovably to his faith in the realization of the Messianic hopes which rested on previous prophecies, it will be evident that the Messianic period would present itself to his mind as connected with the fourth, i.e., extreme development of heathen supremacy, which was so significant to the reflections of a scholar as such; and this conception would be as natural as that, for instance, of Isaiah and Jeremiah, in whom the predominance of religious and theocratic thought, together with the corresponding subordination of political interests as such, produced an association of the Messianic period with the fall of Babylon,” etc. See the same author, p. 58, in relation to the peculiarly definite character of the chronological predictions of Daniel: “There is not a single prediction relating to a definite point of time, in the prophecies of Daniel, which is not the expression of an idea that would be perfectly intelligible to a theocratic contemporary of the writer. The manner in which he determines a point of time might, indeed, seem to be somewhat peculiar; but this consists merely in the astronomically arithmetical measurement of a current conception of time, which reminds us of Babylon, the cradle of astronomical as well as astrological definitions, and which, by its union with the thoroughly Babylonian feature presented in the use of animal symbols, and with the grotesquely descriptive style of the narrative in general, harmonizes with the Babylonian origin of the book.”
§ 10. Design of the Book of Daniel
According to the opponents of the genuineness of this book, who assign it to the Maccabæan period, its author aimed merely to exhort and comfort, and even invented the contents of the first or historical part for this purpose. Both the narratives relating to the heroic faith and steadfastness of Daniel and his friends, when exposed to the threatenings and persecutions of the Babylonian tyrants, and the apocalyptic visions of the second part, were designed to admonish the compatriots and contemporaries of the writer to “emulate these men in their unconquerable faith, as shown in their public and disinterested confession of the God of their fathers, and to remind them that this only true God would, at the proper time, know how to humble and destroy those who, like Antiochus Epiphanes, should exalt themselves against Him in their reckless pride, and should seek to cause His people to renounce His service, as well as how to secure the final victory to his faithful and steadfast adherents” (Bleek, Einleit., p. 602). The book, if really composed in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, would certainly correspond to this design but imperfectly. The hortative and typical bearing of many of its marvelous narratives upon the sufferings, temptations, and religious duties of Israel in a later age, would not have been at all understood. Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius would hardly have been recognized as types of that Seleucidian tyrant, since their relations to the theocracy were wholly different from his. The latter aimed at the complete extirpation and annihilation of the worship of Jehovah, and would never have consented to even a temporary recognition of the supreme power and majesty of the Covenant God of the Old Dispensation, such as was secured from each of those rulers; and the cordial relations which Daniel maintained throughout the exile towards the chaldæan and Medo-Persian heathendom, as chief of the Magian caste, and as an influential political officer and confidential adviser of their heathen rulers, would certainly have exerted a forbidding influence on the narrow-minded, illiberal, and fanatically-inclined Jews of Maccabæan times, instead of encouraging them, quickening their faith, and inspiring them with the zeal of martyrs. With the exception of three men in the fiery furnace, not a single really suitable example would have been presented to the martyrs of this period for their encouragement and comfort, while, at the same time, the prophetic portions of the book would have been burdened with much that was superfluous, obscure, and incomprehensible, and therefore with much that contradicted its design (cf. the note 1 below).
On the other hand, everything reveals a definite plan, and is adapted to a practical end, which is easily apprehended when it is examined from the position of the nation during the exile and immediately afterward. The Chaldee fragments, Daniel 2-7, which were recorded first, are seen in this light to be a collection of partly narrative and partly prophetic testimonies to Jehovah, as the only true God, in contrast with the vain gods of the Babylonians. These fragments were designed to strengthen the faith of the captives, and this design is indicated by the unvarying manner in which each section closes, viz.: by an ascription of praise to Jehovah, which generally falls from the lips of one of the heathen sovereigns himself (see Daniel 2:47; Daniel 3:28 et seq.; Daniel 4:34; Daniel 5:29; Daniel 6:26 et seq.; Daniel 7:27). The Hebrew text was composed somewhat later, and was designed directly and solely for Israel, which appears, not only from the absence of doxologies expressive of the triumph of the faith in Jehovah over the worship of idols, at the end of the several paragraphs, but also from the fact that, aside from the historical introduction to the book as a whole (Daniel 1:1 to Daniel 2:4), it contains only prophecies, which are, moreover, exclusively of a comforting nature. They are designed “to comfort the Hebrew people in the trying political circumstances under which they are either newly engaged in arranging their affairs in Palestine, or are still languishing in the land of the exile. In view of the fact that to the human understanding the duration of this trying condition is unknown, they present the assurance that the continued and increasing tribulations, which must keep pace with the moral corruption of heathendom, are designed by God for the purifying of the faithful (cf. Daniel 11:35; Daniel 12:10), and cannot be imposed a single day beyond what He has determined” (Kranichfeld, p. 60); and with a view to afford a still more effectual comfort and encouragement, they contain repeated references to the Messianic period of salvation (Daniel 9:25 et seq.; Daniel 12:1 et seq.; cf. Daniel 7:3 et seq.), that long predicted glorious conclusion at which the history of God’s people must arrive after passing through many previous clouds and shadows, and which contains in and of itself the assurance that Israel shall be saved out of every affliction, however great.
From their connection with these comforting prophecies, the older records relating to the marvelous displays of Divine power and grace as witnessed by Daniel and his companions, receive an additional significance, as examples tending to encourage, comfort, and quicken the faith of Israel in succeeding ages, and serving, especially in the more sad and troublous seasons, as shining way-marks and guiding stars through the dark nights of a condition in which God had apparently forsaken them, although they were originally recorded for a different situation. This comforting tendency of the book, however, did not reveal itself fully, until, as has been shown elsewhere (§ 6, note 1), almost three hundred and fifty years after the captivity, the religious tyranny of the Seleucidæ brought the full measure of the sufferings predicted by Daniel to bear upon Israel. In consequence, this prophetical book, which up to that time had perhaps been partially misconceived, or at least misunderstood and undervalued, attained its rightful position in the public mind; for the sufferings of the time revealed not only the marked keenness of vision displayed by the Divinely-enlightened seer, but also the fullness of consoling power contained in his wonderful narratives and visions. The Maccabæan period served, therefore, to fully demonstrate the practical design of the book, and thereby to solve its prophetical riddles, to bring to view the depths of wisdom which underlie its meditations on the relations of the world-powers to the kingdom of God, and to secure permanently to its author the honorable rank of the fourth among the greater prophets.
Note 1.—Hävernick, Einl., II:488, shows in a striking manner, the untenable character of the assumption that the book is a fiction of the Maccabæan age, invented to serve a purpose, especially in view of the marked difference between the religious and political circumstances of that time and those prevailing in the captivity: “How marked is the distinction between the heathen kings of this book and Antiochus Epiphanes! Collisions with Judaism occur, indeed, but how different is the conduct of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius the Mede, in relation to the recognition of Judaism and its God ! Where is the evidence in this case of a desire to extirpate Judaism, or to inaugurate a formal persecution of the Jews, such as entered into the designs of Antiochus. There can hardly be two things more dissimilar than are the deportment of a Belshazzar or Darius and that of the Seleucidian king.” Compare page Dan 487: “That Daniel, together with his companions, receives instruction in the language and wisdom of Chaldæa, that he even appears as the head of the Magian caste, and bears a heathen name, fills political positions at heathen courts, maintains relations of intimate friendship with heathen princes, and even manifests the warmest interest in them (cf. Daniel 4:16)—all these are traits in thorough harmony with the history, and corresponding to the circumstances resulting from the captivity, but not according with the rigid exclusiveness of the Maccabæan period,” etc. Cf. Herbst, Einleit., II:2, 98; Zündel, p. 60 et seq.; Pusey, p. 374 et seq.
[Note 2.—We introduce here, as an appropriate connection, some valuable remarks from Keil’s Commentary on Daniel (Clark’s ed., Introd., § 2., p. 5 et seq.), on Daniel’s place in the history of the kingdom of God, so far as these relate to the chosen people of Israel. “The destruction of the kingdom of Judah and the deportation of the Jews into Babylonian captivity, not only put an end to the independence of the covenant people, but also to the continuance of that constitution of the kingdom of God which was founded at Sinai; and that not only temporarily but forever, for in its integrity it was never restored.….The abolition of the Israelitish theocracy, through the destruction of the kingdom of Judah and the carrying away of the people into exile by the Chaldaæns, in consequence of their continued unfaithfulness and the transgression of the laws of the covenant on the part of Israel, was foreseen in the gracious counsels of God; and the perpetual duration of the covenant of grace, as such, was not dissolved, but only the then existing condition of the kingdom of God was changed, in order to winnow that perverse people, who, notwithstanding all the chastisements that had hitherto fallen upon them, had not in earnest turned away from their idolatry, by that the severest of all the judgments that had been threatened them; to exterminate by the sword, by famine, by the plague, and by other calamities, the incorrigible mass of the people; and to prepare the better portion of them, the remnant who might repent, as a holy seed to whom God might fulfill His covenant promises. Accordingly the exile forms a great turning-point in the development of the kingdom of God which He had founded in Israel. With that event the form of the theocracy established at Sinai comes to an end, and then begins the period of the transition to a new form, which was to be established by Christ, and has actually been established by Him.….The restoration of the Jewish state after the exile was not a re-establishment of the Old-Testament kingdom of God. When Cyrus granted liberty to the Jews to return to their own land, and commanded them to rebuild the temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem, only a very small band of captives returned; the greater part remained scattered among the heathen. Even those who went home from Babylon to Canaan were not set free from subjection to the heathen world-power, but remained, in the land which
harmony of daniel’s prophecies of the four great oriental kingdoms
I. Babylonian Empire
This is depicted at its acme under Nebuchadnezzar, who attained the universal sovereignty of Western Asia and Egypt, Griffins or winged lions are a common emblem on the Assyrian sculptures. The empire subsequently degenerated, and, at the same time, became more civilized.
II. Persian Empire.
The original element was Media, where bears abound. Persia was the higher horn and more elevated side. The three ribs are probably Lydia, Assyria, and Babylonia, which were successively absorbed by Cyrus. He was victorious in every direction except eastward. The kings following him were: 1. Cambyses; 2. Smerdis; 3. Darius Hystaspis; 4. Xerxes, who first exerted all his resources against Greece.
III. Macedonian Empire.
Copper denotes the mercenary Greeks. The leopard represents their slyness and pertinacity. The four wings are indicative of double velocity. Alexander marched with unexampled rapidity. He was the sole ruler of his dynasty. His dominions were divided, shortly after his premature death, between, 1. Ptolemy, in Egypt and the Mediterranean coast; 2. Seleucus, in Asia; 3. Lysimachus, in Thrace; 4. Cassander, in Greece.
IV. Syrian Monarchy.
This was of a mongrel character, the native Oriental element corresponding to the clay, and the foreign Greek to the iron. These were combined in all sorts of affinities. The tentoes may symbolize the numerous satrapies which fell tot he share of Seleucus. This dynasty is depicted as fierce, from contrast with the lenient government preceding, and especially from its intolerance towards the Jewish religion.
1. Seleucus Nicator was originally Ptolemy’s general at Babylon, but soon managed to secure not only the entire East, but also the province of Syria (including Palestine). 2. Antiochus Soter was engrossed with subduing the Gauls. 3. Antiochus Theos made peace with Ptolemy Philadelphus by marrying Berenice, his daughter; but soon repudiated her in favor of Laodice, his former wife, who revenged herself by poisoning him and killing her rival with her infant.
Berenice’s brother, Ptolemy Euergetes, avenged her death by invading Syria, carrying away immense spoil.
4. Seleucus Callinicus attempted to retaliate by attacking the Egyptian provinces [translate, ver. 9, “And he (the king of the north) shall come into the kingdom of the king of the south”], but was forced to retire with defeat. 5. Seleucus Ceraunus, his son, renewed the attempt, but was slain: and his brother, 6. Antiochus the Great, pushed the campaign to the border of Egypt.
This roused Ptolemy Philopator, who assembled an army, with which he totally routed Antiochus at Gaza; but he then concluded a truce with him.
Fourteen years afterwards, Antiochus returned with the spoils of his Eastern campaigns to renew his designs against the Egyptian provinces, and, with the assistance of a party of the Jews, lie defeated the Egyptian general at the sources of the Jordan, besieged and captured the remainder of the Egyptian force in Zidon, and got full possession of Palestine. He now concluded a hollow alliance with Ptolemy Epiphanes, giving him his daughter Cleopatra, with the Palestinian provinces as a dowry, hoping that she would favor his purposes, an expectation in which he was ultimately disappointed. He then turned his arms against the Greek colonies of Asia Minor and the Ægæan till checked by the Romans under Scipio, who compelled him to sue for peace on the most humiliating terms. He was killed while attempting to plunder a temple in his own dominions. 7. Seleucus Philopator was engrossed with efforts to raise the enormous fine imposed by the Romans upon his father as the price of peace, and was at length assassinated by his minister, 8. Heliodorus, who held the throne a short time, although, 9. Demetrius Soter, son of the last king, was rightfully heir, and, 10. Ptolemy Philometor was entitled to the Palestinian provinces by virtue of his mother’s dower right.
11. Antiochus Epiphanes, brother of Seleucus, artfully and quietly quietly secured the succession, expelling Heliodorus, and ignoring the claims of his nephews Demetrius and Ptolemy. (Daniel styles him “vile,” in contrast with his surname illustrious and notes the Hellenizing corruptions of his reign in Judæa, as detailed below.) The guardians of the latter prince resenting this, a struggle ensued, in which Antiochus twice defeated the Egyptians in a pitched battle on their own borders. He then pretended to make a truce with them, but only used it as a cover for entering Egypt with a small force, and seizing quietly upon the capital and other points. On his return from his second campaign into Egypt, he endeavored to carry out the schema of introducing Greek customs among the Jews. In a third campaign he continued his successes, and in a fourth he was likely to capture Alexandria and reduce the whole Egyptian power, when he was peremptorily ordered to desist by the Romans. On is way home he vented his chagrin at this interference upon the unhappy Jews, in whose because of the voice quarrels he meddled, deposing the high-priest, abolishing the sacrificial offerings, interdicting the ritual, and bitterly perse cuting all who refused to apostatize to paganism. The Temple remained closed to all but heathen victims for three years and a half (1290 days), and Was shortly afterwards rededicated on Dec. 25. B.C. 165 (making l335 days), six and a half years (2300 days) from the first act of profanation in the removal of the legitimate pontiff. Antiochus’s disregard for even the native deities is evident from his renewal of his father’s attempt to plunder the temple of the Syrian Venus. Yet he made the most violent efforts to introduce the worship of Jupiter Capitolinus.
The remainder of his reign is obscure, owing to the nearly total loss of the ancient records concerning it. We have therefore but slight intimations of the final expedition against Egypt, etc., referred to by Daniel as being so successful. It is certain, however, that the last act of his reign was a campaign in the north-eastern provinces, and that he perished miserably (one account says as a raving maniac) as he was hastening to the support of his generals, who had been defeated by the Jewish patriots and zealots. The Maccabees had raised the standard of civil and religious liberty in Judæa, and, after a long and severe struggle, the Jews secured their independence. This they retained for a century, a period of great political and spiritual prosperity in general, which Daniel and the other prophets speak of in such glowing terms as being introductory to the to the Messianic times, the Gospel “kingdom of Heaven,” never to end.
31. Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.
32. This images head was of fine gold, his belly and his thighs of brass,
33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that we of iron and cl., and brake them to pieces.
35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
37.Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
39 And after the thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: for asmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miryclay.
42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken.
43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miryclay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men : but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold, the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation.
2 Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea.
3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.
4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings;
I beheld till the wings there of plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.
5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh
6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it; and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horas.
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then, because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake,
I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.
12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
13 I saw in the night vision, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
17. These great beasts, which are fourkings, which shall arise out of the earth.
18 But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.
19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the rasidue with his feet.
20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.
21 I beheld, and the same born made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
22 Until the Ancient of days came and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise:
25 And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and the times and the dividing of time.
26 But the judgement shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominion shall serve and obey him.
3 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher then the other, and the higher came up last.
4 I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.
5 And as I was considering, behold, a hegoat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes.
6 And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power.
7 And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.
8 Therefore the he-goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it there came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
22 Now that being broken, where as four stood up for it, four kingdom shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall fdestroy wonderful-,:ty, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand;) anil lie shall magnify himself In his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand, up against the t Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.
2 And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.
3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for other besides those.
5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.
6 And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall be stand, nor his arm but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times.
7 But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail.
8 And shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the north.
9 So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom and shall return into his own land.
10 But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress.
11 And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand.
12 And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not he strengthened by it.
13 For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches.
14 And In those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south : also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision"; but they shall fail.
15 So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mound, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand.
16 But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him : and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.
17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on hie side, neither be for him.
18 After this shall he turn his face unto the Isles, and shall take many : but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.
19 Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.
20 Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom : but within few days he shall be-destroyed, neither In anger, nor in battle.
21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom : but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom, by flatteries.
22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.
23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest dares of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.
25 And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and toe king of the Boutn shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand; for they shall forecast devices against him.
26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow : and many shall fall down slain.
27 And both these kings' hearts that shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper : for yet the end thai I be at the time appointed.
28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.
29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.
30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have Indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and "have Intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.
31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctury of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall be corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
35 And tome of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the Indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37 Neither shall he regard the god of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god : for he shall magnify himself above all.
38 But In his estate shall he honor the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall ho honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
39 Thus shall he do In the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and Increase with glory i and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.
40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter Into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown : but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries : and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.
44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of hut palace between the seas In the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his and, and none shall help him.
7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and a half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things hall be finished.
10 Many shall be purified, and mad* white, and tried: but the wicked shall do wickedly : and none of the wicked hall understand; but the wise shall understand.
11 And from the time that the dally sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there thall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
12 Blessed the that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
the Lord had given to their fathers, servants to it. Though now again the ruined walls of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah were restored, and the temple also was rebuilt, and the offering up of sacrifice renewed, yet the glory of the Lord did not again enter into the new temple, which was also without the ark of the covenant and the mercy-seat, so as to hallow it as the place of His gracious presence among His people. The temple worship among the Jews after the captivity was without its soul, the real presence of the Lord in the sanctuary; the high priest could no longer go before God’s throne of grace in the holy of holies to sprinkle the atoning blood of sacrifice toward the ark of the covenant, and to accomplish the reconciliation of the congregation with their God, and could no longer find out, by means of the Urim and Thumim, the will of the Lord. When Nehemiah had finished the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem, prophecy ceased, the revelations of the Old Covenant came to a final end, and the period of expectation (during which no prophecy was given) of the promised Deliverer, of the seed of David, began.… If the prophets before the captivity, therefore, connect the deliverance of Israel from Babylon, and their return to Canaan, immediately with the setting up of the kingdom of God in its glory, without giving any indication that between the end of the Babylonian exile and the appearance of the Messiah a long period would intervene, this uniting together of the two events is not to be explained only from the perspective and apotelesmatic character of the prophecy, but has its foundation in the very nature of the thing itself. The prophetic perspective, by virtue of which the inward eye of the seer beholds only the elevated summits of historical events as they unfold themselves, and not the valleys of the common incidents of history which lie between these heights, is indeed peculiar to prophecy in general, and accounts for the circumstance that the prophecies as a rule give no fixed dates, and apostelesmatically bind together the points of history which open the way to the end with the end itself. But this formal peculiarity of prophetic contemplation we must not extend to the prejudice of the actual truth of the prophecies. The fact of the uniting together of the future glory of the kingdom of God under the Messiah with the deliverance of Israel from exile, has perfect historical veracity. The banishment of the covenant people from the land of the Lord, and their subjection to the heathen, was not only the last of those judgments which God threatened against His degenerate people, but it also continues till the perverse rebels are exterminated, and the penitents are turned with sincere hearts to God the Lord and are saved through Christ. Consequently the exile was for Israel the last space for repentance which God in His faithfulness to His covenant granted to them. Whoever is not brought by this severe chastisement to repentance and reformation, but remains opposed to the gracious will of God, on him falls the judgment of death: and only they who turn themselves to the Lord, their God and Saviour, will be saved, gathered from among the heathen, brought in within the bonds of the covenant of grace through Christ, and become partakers of the promised riches of grace in His kingdom.”]
[Note 3.—As a conspectus of Daniel’s entire series of prophecies respecting the world-kingdoms, showing their complete harmony and mutual illustration, as well as their exact accordance with history, we insert (on pages 44–47) a table of all the passages, taken from M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopœdia, s. v. Daniel.]
[Note 4.—Dr. Cowles, in his Commentary on Daniel (N. Y. 1871), devotes an Excursus (pp. 459 sq.) to the consideration of that theory, generally called the “year-for-a-day” view, which results in applying the prophecy of the fourth kingdom of Rome, and especially the Papacy. His arguments are perfectly conclusive to candid minds. As the work is easily accessible we forbear to quote or abridge his remarks. See further the exegetical observations on the passages where the dates are given.]
§ 11. The Alexandrian Version of the Book of Daniel, and its Apocryphal additions
The Alexandrian translation of this book was, during a long time, supposed to be no more in existence, because the church, as far back as the time of Eusebius of Cæssarea and Pamphylius, had adopted the version of the Jewish proselyte Theodotian, which was considerably more exact and free from errors.38 The genuine Septuagint text of Daniel was not published until 1772, when Simon de Magistris, a Romish priest of the oratory, published it from a Codex Chisianus. The editions by J. D. Michaelis (1773–4) and Segaar (1775) served to farther introduce and multiply this version. H. A. Hahn finally published a truly critical edition (1845), for which he had availed himself of a Syriac-Hexaplarian version published in 1788 by Cajetan Bugati, from a Codex Ambrosianus. This hexapla offers a Septuagint text corrected after Theodotian, as Origen had prepared it for his Hexapla, while the text edited after the Cod. Chisianus represents the genuine and unadulterated language of the Alexandrian version, as it had stood in Origen’s Tetrapla beside the unchanged text of Theodotian (cf. Delitzsch, p. 286).
The Alexandrian version of this book probably originated before, or at any rate about, the middle of the second century before Christ, and therefore at the time in which the opposing criticism finds the Hebrew original to have been written (cf. § 6, note 3). The numerous departures from the original which this version presents, and which consist in the change of words and phrases (e.g. Daniel 1:3; Daniel 1:11; Daniel 1:16; Daniel 2:8; Daniel 2:11; Daniel 2:28; Daniel 7:6; Daniel 7:8, etc.), in part of abbreviations and omissions (e.g. Dan 3:31 et seq.; Daniel 4:2-6; Daniel 5:17-25; 26–28), and finally, also in extensions of the text (e.g., Daniel 4:34; Daniel 6:20; Daniel 6:22-28), are by many critics traced to a Hebrew or Chaldee text diverse from the original, upon which this version is based (e.g. Michaelis, Bertholdt, Eichhorn). But they owe their existence, more probably, to the labors of the translator, since they are merely interpretations or paraphrases, designed to clear up the text, to indicate the connection, or to simplify or intensify the wonderful (cf. Hävernick, Kommentar, p. 47 et, seq.; De Wette, Einl., § 258; Keil, § 137).
Nor do the longer interpolations inserted into the book of Daniel, in both the Alexandrian and Theodotian’s versions, and generally bearing the name of apocryphal additions to Daniel, contain any feature that could compel the assumption of a Hebrew or Chaldee original on which they are based. Their lingual features testify rather to an original composition in the Greek (particularly the paronomasias or plays on Greek words, which were remarked by Porphyry,—such as σχὶνος, σχίσειμπρῐνις, πρίαει, which can scarcely be traced back to Hebrew paronomasias that were copied by the translator39), which is therefore accepted by Michaelis, De Wette, Bleek, Hävernick, etc., while other critics contend that these fragments were wholly, or in part, translated from a Hebrew or Aramaic original. (The latter include not merely Roman Catholics, as Dereser, Welte, Haneberg, Reusch, but also Protestants, among whom are Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Delitzsch [De Habacuci prophetœ vita atque ætate, 1844, p. 52 et seq.], Fritzsche [Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, i. 111 et seq.], Zündel, etc.) This hypothesis of a Shemitic original may be justified, at most, with regard to two of these additions (the prayer of Azariah, and the song of the three children), but not with reference to the two that remain. These latter fragments (the history of “Susanna and Daniel,” and that of “Bel and the dragon”) bear a decidedly legendary character, being designed to glorify Daniel, and involving many improbabilities, and even impossibilities. They are therefore regarded, and with justice, as being of still later origin than the other component parts of the Greek Daniel. In the Alexandrian version they compose the closing sections of the book (chapters 13 and 14, by the modern arrangement of chapters), but are introduced with formulas (e.g. Daniel 14, or Bel and the dragon, with the puzzling superscription: ἐκ τῆς προφητείας ʼΑμθακοὺ̀μ υἱοῦ ʼΙησοῠ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λεϋί), the peculiarity of which is of itself sufficient to indicate their origin subsequent to the time of Daniel, whether an otherwise unknown prophet pseudo-Habakkuk be regarded as their author, or their origin be ascribed to one or several Jewish or Hellenistic writers. In Theodotian’s translation these additions are organically incorporated with the Book of Daniel, Susanna being placed before Daniel 1:0 as belonging to the history of the prophet’s youth—the “prayer of Azariah” and the “song of the three children” being inserted between Daniel 3:23-24 (similar to their position in the Sept.), while only “Bel and the dragon” is consigned to the end of the book after Daniel 12:0.
The question relating to the time and place in which these apocryphal fragments were composed cannot be solved, and we can only venture the supposition that the four emanated from different authors. This appears in the case of the “prayer of Azariah” and the “song of the three children” (Daniel 3:24-30; Daniel 3:51–90), from the circumstance, that in the former (Daniel 3:38) the temple is represented as destroyed and its services as having ceased, while the other fragment presumes the existence of both these institutions (Daniel 3:54, 84 et seq.). Of the two remaining additions, that relating to Susanna (possibly containing a grain of historical truth belonging to the age of the canonical book of Daniel) seems to have been composed at an early day, and without any reference to the canonical Daniel; while “Bel and the dragon,” or the “Prophecy of Habakkuk, the son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi,” appears to have been written, with special reference to Daniel 7:0, by a Palestinian author of a much later time. All of these apocryphal appendages to the questions relating to Daniel furnish a very important testimony in attestation of the superior historical rank and genuine prophetical character of the canonical Daniel, inasmuch as their artificial stamp and legendary tone present a contrast to the far more sober and credible contents of that book, analogous to the familiar contrast between the apocryphal and the canonical Gospels, which serves so strongly to endorse the credibility of the latter. These remarks will also apply to the contrast between Daniel and the pseudonymous apocalypses of the last Jewish, or pre-Christian age, e.g. the “Sibylline Oracles,” Enoch, and the “Fourth Book of Esdras,” whose partial dependence on our book has already been considered (§ 6, especially note 3), and which are unquestionably the earlier or later products of an apocalyptic and simulated authorship, like that of the unknown originators of the additions to our book.
Note.—In relation to the apologetic importance of the apocryphal supplements to Daniel 3:13-14 in the Greek Daniel, compare Delitzsch, p. Dan 186: “How favorable is the testimony for the historical and prophetical character of the canonical book, which results from its contrast with these apocryphal legends!”—and also Zündel, p. Dan 187: “These apocryphal additions to Daniel therefore, did not all originate at the same time, or in the same place; but one appeared on Grecian (?) soil, another on Palestinian, and a third perhaps on Babylonian. They were translated before they were received by the Septuagint (without exception? —see above); and prior to their reception, they had been partially gathered, and ascribed to a spurious Habakkuk.… If Daniel, therefore, was, not composed until B. C. 168, how could the translation in question, together with these additions, have existed as early as B. C. 130? Even though an unusually rapid formation of legends be assumed, from the oldest, relating to Susanna, to the latest αἴνεσις τῶν τριω̆ν παίδων, how is it possible to conceive the contrast between the original work and the oldest forgery, as developed within the limits of a single generation? And from the earliest forgery again, down to the latest, would not a considerable contrast have arisen here, e.g. between the προσευχή and the αἴνεσις? … And beyond this, their being translated and collected! All these considerations compel us to assume a period, covering many generations, between the origin of the book of Daniel and its Alexandrian version.”—See ibid., p. 134 et seq., and especially p. 137, on the relation of the Jewish apocalypses of the pre-Christian period, to Daniel: “A pre-Christian, or, upon the whole, a progressive development, cannot be asserted in connection with these apocalypses; for, with the exception of the Sibyllines, none of them was sufficiently important to give rise to imitations. They did not spring from each other, but are co-ordinate, and the only connection among themselves consists in their imitating the earlier prophets, and in their tendency to describe the facts of history in an apocalyptic manner. But on the other hand, nearly all of them contain imitations of Daniel. The “Book of Enoch” treats of the interpretation of the number seventy in his seventy regents; Esdras’s eagle with wings and feathers is evidently the fourth [? first] beast of Daniel; and the person who incessantly inquires why the covenant people is afflicted, is merely a copy of Daniel while mourning because of the delay in the fulfilment of prophecy (Daniel 9:10). The numbers of Daniel in Daniel 8:0 are almost completely restored in the Ascensio Jesajœ, which also paints the coming of the Lord with Daniel’s colors,” etc.
The apocryphal additions to Daniel are found also in the ancient Coptic version, which is not without importance for textual criticism. They have been published by Henry Tattam, in vol. II, p. 270 ss. of his Prophetœ majores in linguœ Ægyptiacœ dialecto Memphitica s. Coptica (Oxon, 1852).
§ 12. Theological and Homiletical, Literature on Daniel
I. Ancient Period.—1. Christian expositors. (1) Church fathers: Hippolyti Commentar in Danielis et Nebuchadnezaris visionum solutiones (capp. 7–12), editus e cod. Chisiano in Danielem sec. LXX interpretes, Romæ, 1772 (see also the fragment in Greek of a commentary on Daniel in the Opp. Hippolyti, ed. J. A. Fabricius, Hamb., 1716). Ephræmi Syri Commentar. in Dan., in his Opp. Gr. et Syr, ed. Assemani, Rom., 1740 et seq., tom. 2., p. 203 et seq. Hieronymi Explanatio in Danielem prophetam, in his Opp. ed Vallars., Venet., 1768, tom. 5, p. 2. Theodoreti Commentar in visiones Danielis prophetœ (‛Υπόμνημα ει̇ς τὰς ὁράσεις τοῠ προφήτου Δανιήλ), in his Opp. ed. schulze, Hal., 1768 et seq., t. 2, p. 2, p. 1063 et seq.40 Polychronii (a brother of Theodore of Mopsuestia) Commentarius in Danielem, in A. Mai, Nova Collect, I. B, p. 155. [Chrysostomi Interpretatio in Danielem, in his Opp. 6:228 et seq.] (2) During the middle ages: Joachimi Expositio in Daniel., Venet., 1519. Thomas Aquinas, Comm. in Daniel., separ. ed. Paris, 1640. [Rupertus Tuitiensis, In Danielem, liber 1 (in his Opp. 1, 520 et seq.) Albertus Magnus, Comment in Danielem (in his Opp., p. 8 et seq.)] 2. Jewish expositors (Rabbins): R. Saadia Hag-Gaon (41 924), in the Rabbin Bibles by Bomberg (Venet., 1526 et seq.) and Buxtorf (Basil, 1618). Rashi (i.e., R. Shelomoh ben-Jizchak,† 1105), ibid., and also in J. F. Breithaupt’s Commentt. R. S. Jarchi in Prophh., Job, et Psalmos in Lat. vert., Goth., 1713. Ibn-Ezra († 1167), in the Rabbin. Bibles. Abarbanel († 1508), מַעְיְנֵי יְשׁוּעָה (i.e., “wells of salvation,” Isaiah 12:3), Neap., 1497; also Amsterd., 1617, 4. R. Joseph Teitzack (about 1500), לֶחֶם סְתָרִים (panis absconditus, Proverbs 9:17—a commentary on Daniel and the 5 Megilloth), Venet., 1608, 4. R. Mosheh Alshech (about 1560), חֲבַּצֶּכֶֹת הַשָּׁרוֹן (Song of Solomon 2:1), Zaphat, 1568; Venet., 1592. R. Shamuel b.-Jeh. Valeri (16th cent.), חָזוֹן כַֹמֹעֵד (visio temporis statuti), Venet., 1586. R. Joseph ben-D. David ben-J. Jachim (usually Jacchiades,† 1559), Paraphrasis in Dan. proph., Heb. et Lat., ed Const. L’Empereur, Amstel., 1633, 4to; [new ed., by Philippson, Dessau, 1808, 4to and 8vo. Jud. Löw Jeitteles, a Heb. Commentary on Dan., Ezra and Neh., Vienna, 1835, 8vo.]
II. Modern period. 1. Protestant expositors. (a) In the 16th century: Luther, Der Prophet Daniel deutsch, Wittenb., 1530, 4 (dedicated to duke John Fred.); Vorrede über den Proph. Daniel, nebst Auslegung des 11 und 12. Kap., Wittenb., 1546, 4; Disputation über den Ort Daniel 4:24;—the three works collected under the title Auslegung des Proph. Daniel, in vol. 6 of Walch’s ed. Melancthon, Comment. in Daniel. proph., Vitemb., 1543, 8 (in his Opp., tom. 2, p. 410); [Exposition of Daniel, gathered out of P. Melancthon, by G. Joy, Geneva, 1545, 16mo, Lond., 1550, 8vo]; in German, by Just. Jonas, 1546. Job. Draconitis Comment. in Daniel. ex Ebrœo versum, cum oratione in Danielem, Marburg, 1544, 8. Victorin. Strigel, Danielis prophetœ concio, ad Ebraicam et Chaldaicam veritatem recognita et argumentis atque scholiis illustrata, Lips., 1565, 1571. Joh. Wigand, Explicatio brevis in Danielem, Jen., 1571. Nik. Selnekker, Erkl. des Proph. Daniel und der Offenbarung Johannis, Jen., 1567, 1608. Phil. Heilbrunner, Danielis proph. vaticinia in locos communes theologicos digesta et quœstionibus methodice illustrata, Lauing., 1587. J. Œcolampadius, In Danielem. ll. II, omnigena et abstrusiore cum Ebrœorum tum Grœcorum scriptorum doctrina referti, Basil., 1530, 1543, and often. J. Calvin, Prœlectiones in Danielem, a Joa. Budæo et Car. Jonvillæo collectæ, Genev., 1563, 1576, and often (also in his Opp., tom, 5, Amstel., 1667 [Commentary on Daniel, tr. by T. Myres, M.A., Edinb., 1852, 2 vols. 8vo.]). Fr. Junius, Expositio proph. Danielis, a Jo. Grutero excepta, Heidelb., 1593; Genev., 1594. Rob. Rollock, Comm. in libr. Dan. prophetæ, Edinb., 1591; Basil, 1594; Gen., 1598. Hugh Broughton, Danielis visiones Chaldaicæ et Ebrœœ, ex originali translatœ et illustratœ, London, 1596 (Engl. ed. [also in Works, p. 164 et seq.]), Basil., 1599 (Lat. ed. J. Boreel). A Polanus a Polansdorf, In Danielem prophetam, visionum amplitudine difficillimum, vaticiniorum majestate augustissimum, commentarius, in quo logica analysi et theologica ἐκθέσει, tradita in publicis prœlectionibis in vetusta Basileensi academia, totius libri, ad hoc œvum calamitosum saluberrimi, genuinus sensus et multiplex usus ostenditur, Basil., 1599, 1608.
(b). In the 17th century: S. Gesner, Daniel propheta disputationibus 12, et prefatione chronologica breviter explicatus, Vitemberg., 1601, 1607, and often. Polyc. Leyser, Commentarius in Dan. Daniel 1-6, Francof. et Darmst, 1609 et seq.† J. C. Rhumelius, Liber Danielis paraphrasi recensitus, Norimb., 1616. Mart. Geier, Prœlectiones academiœ in Danielem proph., Lips., 1667 and often. Abrah. Calov, Annotata Anti-Grotiana in Jeremiam et Danielem proph., Vitemb., 1664. A. Varenius, Collegium canonicum quatuor novissimorum V. Ti. prophetarum, Danielis, Haggœi, Zachariœ, Malachiœ, Rostochii, 1667. G. Meissner, Der Prophet Daniel, sowohl geschehene Dinge ausredend, als künftige weissagend, durch kurze Anmerkungen erläutert; with a preface by J. Fr. Mayer, Hamburg, 1695, 12. J. H. Alsted, Trifolium propheticum, i.e., Cant. Canticor. Salom., prophetia Danielis, Apocalypsis Joannis, sic explicantur, ut series textus et temporis prophetici, e regione posita, lucem menti et consolationem cordi ingerant, Herborn, 1640. Constantin L’Empereur (Professor controversiarum Judaicarum at Leyden, † 1648), Paraphrasis Jos. Jachiadœ in Danielem cum versione et annotationibus, Amstel., 1633 (see supra I., 2). Thom. Parker, Expositio visionum et prophetiarum Danielis, Lond, 1646. J. Cocceius, Comment. in Danielem, Lugd. Bat., 1666. H. Wingendorf, Prophetia Danielis paraphrasi reddita et cum profanœ historiœ monumentis collata, Lugd. Bat., 1674. J. H. Jungmann, Propheta Daniel novo modo et hactenus inaudito reseratus, etc., etc., Casselis, 1681. Balth. Bekker, Uitlegginge van den Prophet Daniel, Amsterd., 1688, 1698.
(c). In the 18th century: J. Musæus, Scholœ propheticœ continuatœ, ex prœlectionibus in prophetas Danielem, Micham, et Joelem collectœ, ed. J. E. de Schulenberg, Quedlinb., 1719. Chr. Bened. Michaelis, Adnotationes philologico-exegeticœ in Danielem, Hal., 1720 (also in Vol. III. of the Annotatt. uberiores in Hagiogr.). J. W. Petersen, Sinn des Geistes in dem Propheten Daniel, Frankfort a. M., 1720. J. Koch, Entsiegelter Daniel, d. i. richtige Auflösung der sämmtlichen Weissagungen Daniels, nach ihrem wahren Inhalt, unzertrennl. Verbindung, einhelligen Absicht, und genauen, sogar auf Jahre und Tage mit der Chronologie zutreffenden Zeitrechnung auf den Messiam, Lemgo, 1740. M. Fr. Roos, Auslegung der Weissagungen Daniels, die in die Zeit des Neuen Testaments hineinreichen, nebst ihrer Vergleichung mit der Offenb. Joh. nach der Bengel’schen Erklärung derselben, Leips., 1771 [in English, by G. Henderson, Edinb., 1811, 8vo.]. J. Chr. Harenberg, Aufklärung des Buches Daniel aus der Grundsprache, der Geschichte und übrigen rechten Hülfsmitteln, zum richtigen Verstand der Sätze, zur Befestigung der Wahrheit, und zur Erbauung durch die Religion, Blankenburg and Quedlinburg, 1773, 2 parts. Chr. S. Benj. Zeise, Uebersetzung und Erklärung des Buches Daniel, Dresden, 1777. J. D. Lüderwald, Die sechs ersten Kapitel Daniels, nach historischen Gründen geprüft und berichtigt, Helmstädt, 1787. J. C. Volborth, Daniel aufs neue aus dem Hebräish Chaldäischen übersetzt, und mit kurzen Anmercungen für unstudirte Leser und Nichttheologen begleitet. Hanover, 1788. C. G. Thube, Das Buch des Propheten Daniel, neu übersetzt und erklärt, Schwerin and Wismar, 1797. Wm. Lowth, Commentary upon the prophecy of Daniel and the twelve Minor prophets, Lond., 1726, 2 vols. Isaac Newton, Observations upon the prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John, Lond., 1733, 2 vols. (a posthumous work, published six years after the death of the author; afterwards published in Latin by W. Südemann, Amstel., 1737, and in German, with notes, by C. F. Grossmann, Leips., 1765.—Cf. supra § 5.). H. Venema, Dissertationes ad vaticinia Danielis emblematica, cap. II, VII. et VIII. de quatuor orientis regnis, ordine sibi successuris et quinto Messiœ; in quibus illa novâ viâ demonstrantur et illustrantur, aliisque prophetis lux affunditur, Leovard., 1745. The same, Comment. in Dan. cap. Daniel 11:4 to Daniel 12:3, ibid., 1752. R. Amner, An essay towards an interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel, Lond., 1776; also in German, Versuch über die sämmtlichen Weissagungen Daniels, nebst Anmerkungen über die berühmtesten Erkläer derselben, von Rich. Amner, Halle, 1779. T. Wintle, Daniel, An improved version attempted, with a preliminary dissertation and notes, critical, historical, and explanatory, Lond., 1792.
(d). In the 19th century: Leonh. Bertholdt, Daniel aus dem Hebräish-Aramäisehen neu übersetzt und erklärt, mit einer vollständigen Einleitung und einigen historischen u. exegetisehen Exkursen, 2 parts, Erlangen, 1806, 1808. G. F. Griesinger, Neue Ansicht der Aufsätze im Buch Daniel, Stuttg. and Tübingen, 1815. E. F. C. Rosenmüller Danielem Lat. vertit et annotatione perpetua illustravit (part 10 of the Scholia in V. T.), Lips., 1832. H. A. Ch. Hävernick, Kommentar über das Buch Daniel, Hamb., 1832. Cäs. v. Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, Königsb., 1835. F. J. V. D. Maurer, Commentar. gramm. crit. in V. T., vol. II, fasc. 1 (Ezech. et Dan.), 1836. F. Hitzig, Kurzgefasstes exeget. Handbuch zum A. T.; 10th pamphlet, Das Buch Daniel, Leips., 1850. C. A. Auberlen, Der Prophet Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis, in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältniss betrachtet und in ihren Hauptstellen erläutert, Basle, 1854, 1857 [in English, by Rev. A. Sophir, Edinb., 1856, 8vo.]. J. M. Gärtner, Erklärung des Propheten Daniel und der Offenbarung Johannis, sowie der Weissagung von Hesekiel’s Gog, in genauer Uebereinstimmung mit den Haupterscheinungen der Welt-und Kirchengeschichte seit der Gründung des babylonischen Weltreichs, 606 v. Chr., bis auf unsere Zeit und bis zur Wiederkunft Christi um das Ende unseres Jahrhunderts; 6 numbers, Stuttgart, 1863 et seq. Rud. Kranichfeld, Das Buch Daniel erklärt, Berl., 1868. Kliefoth, Das Buch Daniels übersetzt und erklärt, Schwerin, 1868. Ad. Kamphausen, in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk, 6 half vols., 1st half, Leips., 1867. H. Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, 2d ed., vol. 3, Gött., 1868 (the first ed. contained merely a monograph exposition of Daniel 9:24-27—see infra). E. B. Pusey, Lectures on Daniel the Prophet, Oxford, 1864. [Füller, Erklärung des P. Daniel, Basle, 1868.]
(2) Roman-Catholic expositors since the Reformation. Arias Montanus, Comment. in Dan., Antwerp, 1562. Hector Pintus, Commentarii in Danielem, Lamentationes Jeremiœ et Nahum, divinos vates, Coimbra, 1582; Venet., 1583; Colon., 1587. Bened. Pererius, Commentariorum in Danielem proph., ll. xvi., Rom., 1586; Lugd., 1588; Antv., 1594. Casp. Sanctius, Comment. in Dan. proph., Lugd., 1612,1619. Joh. Maldonatus, Comment, in Jerem., Ezech., Dan., Leyd., 1611; Par., 1643. Jacob Veldius, Comment. in Dan. proph. cum Chronologia ad intelligenda Jeremiæ, Ezech., et Dan. vaticinia, Antv., 1602. Fabricius Paulitius, Comm. in Dan., Rom., 1625. Ludov. ab Alcazar, Comm. in varios locos l. Dan., Lugd., 1631. Cornelius a Lapide, August. Calmet, and Dereser-Scholz in their comprehensive Bible-works. G. K. Mayer (Prof. at Bamberg), Die messianischen Prophezien des Daniel, Vienna, 1866.
Monographs.—For the critical and apologetical literature, or the principal monographs aiming to attack or defend the genuineness of the book (Bleek, Kirmss, Hävernick, Hengstenberg, Zündel, Füller, Volck, etc.), see supra, § 5.
Exegetical monographs: H. Venema, Dissertationes (see supra, Daniel 2:1 c). Thomas Newton, Abhandlungen über die Weissagungen, welche merkwürdig erfüllt sind und noch bis auf den heutigen Tag in Erfüllung gehen; from the English, Leips., 1757 (containing, on p. 304 et seq., an apologetical discussion of the visions concerning the world-kingdoms, Daniel 2:7, which is directed against Collins, Grotius, and others). J. G. Scharfenberg, Specimen animadversionum, quibus loci nonnulli Danielis et vett. ejus interpretum, prœsertim Grœcorum, illustrantur et emendantur, Lips., 1774. S. Th. Wald, Curarum in historiam textus Danielis specim. I, Lips., 1783. Compare the essay by the same: Ueber die arabische Uebersetzung des Daniel in den Polyglotten, in Eichhorn’s Repert. für bibl. u. morgenl. Literatur, part 14.Abhandlungen uber , Leips., 1784. Laur. Reinke, Die messian. Weissagungen bei den grossen und Kleinen Propheten des A. T., vol. iv. 1, p. 167 et seq. (chiefly an exposition of Daniel 9:24-27), Giessen, 1862. H. Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, 1st ed., Stuttgart, 1841, vol. II, appendix (likewise confined to the exposition of Daniel 9:24 et seq.) J. Chr. Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfüllung im A. und N. T.,., p. 276 et seq., Nörd., 1841. The same, Die 70 Jahre Jeremias und die 70 Jahrwochen des Daniel, Nuremberg, 1836. K. Wieseler, Die 70 Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des Propheten Daniel, Götting., 1839. The most complete record of the older exegetical literature on Daniel 9:24-27, or on the 70 weeks of years, may be found in Abrah. Calov’s Bibl. illustr., tom. I, p. 119 et seq., and in his monograph, De LXX. septimanis mysterium, Vitemb., 1663. Compare also Bertholdt, Daniel, etc., vol. II, p. 563 et seq.; Danko, Historia revelationis divinœ Novi Testamenti, p. 73 et seq.; Ranke, as above, p. 211 et seq., and also Reusch, Die patristischen Berechnungen der 70 Jahrwochen Daniels, in the Tübinger Theol. Quartalschrift, 1868, No. iv, p. 535 et seq. [See also the monographs cited by Danz, Wörter-buch, s. v.; and Darling, Cyclopœdia, ad loc.]
[III. Additional exegetical works on Daniel in the English language. 1. Commentaries on the entire book: A. Willett, A Six-fold Commentary on Daniel, etc., Lond., 1610, fol. E. Huit, The whole prophecies of Daniel explained, etc., Lond., 1643, 4to. T. Parker, The Visions and prophecies of Daniel expounded, etc., Lond., 1646, 4to. H. More, Exposition of the Prophet Daniel, Lond., 1681, 4to; the same, Answers to Remarks, ibid., 1684, 4vo; the same, Supple ment and Defences, ibid., 1685, 4to; the same, Notes on Daniel and the Apocalypse, ibid., 1685, 4to. Anon., The visions and prophecies of Daniel explained, etc., Lond., 1700, 12mo. E. Wells, The Book of Daniel explained, etc., Lond., 1716, 4to. R. Amner, An Essay towards the interpretation of Daniel, etc., Lond., 1776, 8vo. J. H. Frere, A combined view of the prophecies of Daniel, Esdras, and St. John, etc., Lond., 1815, 8vo. W. Girdlestone, Observations on the visions of Daniel, etc., Oxf., 1820, 8vo. J. Wilson, Dissertations on the book of Daniel, Oundle, 1824, 8to. F. A. Coxe, Outlines of lectures on Daniel , 2 d ed., Lond., 1834, 12mo. T. Wintle, An improved Version of Daniel, with Notes, Lond., 1836, 8vo. L. Gaussen, Lectures on the Book of Daniel, Lond., 1840, 12mo. C. P. Miles, Lectures on Daniel, Lond., 1840–41, 2 vols., 12mo. B. Harrison, Prophetic Outlines of the Christian Church, etc. (Warburton Lectures), Lond., 1849, 8vo. M. Stuart, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Andover, 1850, 8vo. A. Barnes, Notes on Daniel, N. Y., 1850, 12mo. J. Cumming, Lectures on the Book of Daniel, Lond., 1850, 8vo. W. Ramsay, Exposition of the book of Daniel, Lond., 1853, 12mo. J. Bellamy, New Translation of the book of Daniel, etc., Lond., 1863, 4to. W. Shrewsbury, Notes on the book of Daniel, Edinb., 1865, 8vo. P. S. Desprez, The Apocalypse of the Old Test., Lond., 1865, 8vo. H. Cowles, Ezekiel and Daniel, with Notes, N. Y., 1867, 12mo. W. H. Rule, Historical Exposition of the Book of Daniel, Lond., 1869, 8vo. (adopts the year-day theory, and applies the little horn to the papacy). W. Kelly, Notes on the Book of Daniel, Edinb., 1870, 12mo. C. F. Keil, The Book of the prophet Daniel (being part of Keil and Delitzsch’s Commentary on the Old Testament), Edinb., 1872, 8vo., from the German. L. Strong, Lectures on the Book of Daniel, Lond., 1872, 8vo. Prof. Gaussen, The Prophesies of Daniel Explained, translated by Blackstone, Lond., 1873, 8vo (makes the fourth kingdom Rome).
2. Monographs.—T. Brightman, Exposition of the last part of Daniel, Lond., 1644, 4to. Anonymous, An Essay on Scripture Prophecy, s. 1. [probably Lond.], 1724 (makes the fourth beast Rome). Z. Grey, Examination of Sir Isaac Newton’s Observations upon Daniel, etc. (treats only of the special points named in the title), Lond., 1736, 8vo. G. Burton, An Essay on the Numbers of Daniel and St. John, Norwich, 1766–68, 2 vols., 8vo. Anon., Seven prophetical periods, etc., Lond., 1790, 4to. G. S. Faber, Dissertation on Daniel’s LXX Weeks (makes them extend from the 17th of Artaxerxes to the 15th of Tiberius), Lond., 1811, 8vo. See also his Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, Lond., 1828, 3 vols. 8vo., in which he argues at length for the year-day theory. E. Irving, Babylon and Infidelity foredoomed, etc. (adopts the year-day theory with its consequences), Glasgow, 1826, 2 vols. 8vo.; ibid, 1828, 8vo. J. Tyso, An elucidation, etc., showing that the Seventy Weeks have not yet taken place, Lond., 1838, 8vo. J. Farquharson, Illustrations of Daniel’s last vision and prophecy, Lond., 1838, 8vo. N. S. Folsom, Interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel (against Millerism, and of course rejects the reference of the fourth kingdom to Rome), Boston, 1842, 12mo. I. T. Hinton, Prophecies of Daniel and John (applies the third empire to the Turks, and the fourth to Rome), St. Louis, 1843, 12mo. 1. Chase, Remarks on the Book of Daniel (applies the “little horn” exclusively to Antiochus Epiphanes), Boston, 1844,12mo. G. Junkin, The Little Stone of the Great Image (interprets the “little horn” of the Papacy), Phila., 1844, 8vo. T. R. Birks, The two later visions of Daniel (makes the fourth kingdom Rome), Lond., 1846, 12mo. S. Lee, Events and Times of the Visions of Daniel and St. John (makes the “little horn” exclusively heathen Rome), London, 1851, 8vo. A. M. Osbon, Daniel verified in History, etc. (makes the fourth kingdom Rome), N. Y., 1856, 12mo. J. Oswald, The kingdom which shall not be destroyed, etc. (makes the fourth kingdom Rome), Phila., 1856, 12mo. S. Sparkes, A Historical Commentary on Daniel xi. (adopts the year-day theory, and applies the whole chapter to modern times), Binghamton, 1858, 8vo. W. R. A. Boyle, The Inspiration of the Book of Daniel (applies the fourth kindom to the Roman Empire), Lond., 1863, 8vo. S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Visions of Daniel, etc. (rejects the year-day theory with its conclusions), Lond., fifth ed., 1864, 12mo. R. Phillips, On Daniel’s Numbers, Lond., 1864, 12mo. L. A. Sawyer, Daniel with its apocryphal additions (a new translation), Bost., 1864, 12mo. R. A. Watkinson, The End as foretold in Daniel, etc. (adopts the year-day theory), N. Y., 1865, 12mo. F. W. Bosanquet, Messiah the Prince, Lond., 1866, 8vo. H. W. Taylor, The Times of Daniel (adopts the year-day theory), N. Y., 1871, 12mo. H. Loomis, The Great Conflict (makes the little horn the Papacy), N. Y., 1874, 12mo.]
[These arguments of Hävernick, however, are not in point to show the general oppression of the Jews in the latter portion of the Babylonian exile. The treatment of the three Hebrew children, and at times of Daniel himself, are only occasional and exceptional instances of Oriental despotism, when aroused by opposition to an arbitrary and universal edict, as the immunity and even honors following evince. The book of Esther contains an apt commentary on these capricious vicissitudes. The reference to the passage in Eccles. is particularly inapposite, as that book belongs to the Solomonic age.]
[On the contrary it appears that the chastisement of Israel by the captivity, became, as it was intended to be, an effectual cure of outward idolatry. The very sight of the abominations practised by their heathen captors, seems, as in the case of similar close contact with polytheism in Egypt, to have thoroughly disgusted and warned them from ail such tendencies. The prayer of Daniel, alluded to by the author, is only a general confession of the past sins of the nation, for which the exile, now drawing near its close, is recognized as the just penalty. The passages in Ezekiel have a much earlier date.]
[The passages of Isaiah here cited depict in part the idolatry of the heathen, with which the chosen nation are contrasted, and in part the degeneracy of the prophet’s countrymen in his own day, for which the captivity was to be a punishment. Few, if any of them, necessarily imply anything more than that discouragement, which a long delay of the promised deliverance would naturally engender.]
[To those far removed from all influence of the prevalent rationalism of German criticism, the insidious tincture of which, notwithstanding the author’s disclaimer, is evident in his conclusion on this point, the ascription of any portion of the book of Daniel to a later nameless writer on such purely subjective grounds, must appear altogether gratuitous. The business of the interpreter is, not to prescribe what God was likely to cause a prophet to predict, but to accept and expound accordingly what historical and substantial testimony has delivered to us as the actual words of prophecy. There is no more evidence of a pseudo-Daniel than of a pseudo-Isaiah.]
[The inconsistency of the author’s position here is palpable, if we correctly apprehend his somewhat involved statement of it. The Revelation of St. John, if not the apostle’s, is of course under a fictitious name, and the 11th chapter of Daniel, if not that prophet’s, is equally pseudonymical, whoever may be conceived as the interpolator. The distinction in this respect between a whole work and a part only is too nice to escape the odium of a “pious fraud.”]
[Auberlen (Daniel and Revelation, Clarke’s ed., p. 77 sq.) notices several other “materialistic differences between the Apocalypse of the Old and of the New Testament,” growing more or less directly out of the different position occupied by the people of God at their respective times. Those who have insisted that the Antichrist of the one is necessarily the Antichrist of the other, have therefore interpreted the symbols as having precisely the same significance, have unduly overlooked these differences in the standpoint and design of the two prophets.]
So Gesenius and Dietrich, in the Handwörterbuch, explain, in connection with many older expositors, while Fürst interprets the name by “judge through, God,” and a majority render it “God is my judge” (e.g., Hävernick, with reference to Genesis 30:6), or also, “God is judge” (e.g., Reinke, Die messianischen Weissagungen, etc., 4:1, 167).
The Jewish tradition found in Pseudo-Epiphanius, De vit. prophet., c. 10, which locates the birth-place of Daniel ἐν Βεθεβόρῳ τῇ�, or, by another reading (preferred by Reland, Palaest., p. 694), ἐν Βεθέρων τῇ�, is of no historical value, and perhaps originated in the desire to place the birth of the prophet, who, on the authority of Ezra 8:2, was held to be a Levite, in a Levitical city (see Joshua 21:22).
[“The history of that period, in Kings and Chronicles, seems to warrant the supposition that the Jewish lads in question were hostages, who were drawn from the upper classes of society at Jerusalem, in order to secure the quiet and submission of the Jewish king and his nobles in their tributary condition.”—Stuart.]
[“The reader will recall some points of close analogy between Daniel and Joseph. Both were captives; each rose in a foreign kingdom to the same rank of prime minister, by the same qualities of personal character—sterling integrity, unselfish devotion to their work, great business capacity, and unfaltering faith in God. Each became, under God, a patron and protector to his suffering people. To each was given of God extraordinary prophetic powers, which served to raise him to general notice and confidence, and manifestly in the case of Daniel, served to exalt the God of the Hebrew race highly in the convictions of the monarchs under whom he served. Each was able to distance and confound all the pretenders to supernatural knowledge, of whom there were many both in Egypt and Babylon.”—Cowles.]
[“This custom of taking young men of the finest parts from a captive or subject race to fill responsible positions about the king has prevailed in many despotic governments, and is essentially the usage of the Turkish empire to this day. It finds its motives (1) In the fact that such monarchs need men about them of the very first abilities; (2) In the difficulty they would experience in getting young men of such ability among their own people, who might not, by virtue of their social position or connections, become dangerous to the throne,”—Cowles.]
Cf. Jerome, Comment. in Daniel 8:2, where the erection of this palace is erroneously transferred to Susa.
Klicfoth (Das Buck Daniels, p. 48) assents to this, and observes, that in addition to the fact that, “according to his office Daniel was not a prophet, but an officer of the state,” “his book contained prophecies concerning the world-power,” and further, that, “in view of its historical matter, his book is a historical document for the period during which Israel languished under the world-power of Babylon and Media.”
[Keil (Commentary on Daniel, Clarke’s tr., p. 84) ingeniously traces the logical position of the chapters in this historical portion as follows. He regards Daniel 2-3 as comprising, after the introductory Daniel 1:0, the first part of the Book, containing “the development of the world-power,” and remarks that “this part contains in six chapters as many reports regarding the successive forms and the natural character of the world-powers. It begins (Daniel 2:0) and ends (Daniel 7:0) with a revelation from God regarding its historical unfolding in four great world-kingdoms following each other, and their final overthrow by the kingdom of God, which shall continue for ever. Between these chapters (2 and 7) there are inserted four events belonging to the times of the first and second world-kingdoms, which partly reveal the attempts of the rulers of the world to compel the worshippers of the true God to pray to their idols and their gods, together with the failure of this attempt (Daniel 3:6), and partly the humiliations of the rulers of the world, who were boastful of their power, under the judgments of God (Daniel 4:5), and bring under our consideration the relation of the rulers of this world to the Almighty God of heaven and earth and to the true fearers of His name. The narratives of these four events follow each other in chronological order, because they are in actual relation bound together, and therefore also the occurrences (Daniel 5:6) which belong to the time subsequent to the vision in Daniel 7:0 are placed before this vision, so that the two revelations regarding the development of the world-power form the frame within which is contained the historical section which describes the character of that world-power.” The second part of the entire book, as distributed by Keil (Daniel 8-12), is designated by him as “the development of the kingdom of God”—thus contrasted with the world-power of the former section. This latter part Keil analyzes as follows: “This part contains three revelations which Daniel received during the reigns of Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian, regarding the development of the kingdom of God. After describing in the first part the development of the world-power and its relation to the people and kingdom of God from the days of Nebuchadnezzar, its founder, down to the time of its final destruction by the perfected kingdom of God, in this second part it is revealed to the prophet how the kingdom of God entered against the power and enmity of the rulers of the world, and amid severe oppressions, is carried forward to final victory, and is perfected. The first vision, Daniel 8:0, represents what will happen to the people of God during the developments of the second and third world-kingdoms; the second revelation, Daniel 9:0, gives to the prophet, in answer to his penitential prayer for the restoration of the ruined holy city and the desolated sanctuary, disclosures regarding the whole development of the kingdom of God, from the close of the Babylonian exile to the final accomplishment of God’s plan of salvation. In the last vision, in the third year of Cyrus, Daniel 10-12, he received yet further and more special revelations regarding the severe persecutions which await the people of God for their purification, in the nearer future under Antiochus Epiphanes, and in the time of the end under the last foe, the Antichrist” (p. 283).]
In support of this statement of the contents of Daniel 9:22; Daniel 9:27, and especially of the verse last mentioned, compare the exegetical ren arks on that passage. [For counter arguments, see the additions thereto.]
[See, however, the exegetical remarks on this last particular.]
[We shall there endeavor to show that all these suppositions of any interpolation whatever are gratuitous and unsupported.]
[On the contrary, such a state of oppression, if it existed at the time (of which there is no evidence), would have rendered the foreign tongue odious, and therefore been the strongest possible reason for avoiding it. Such was certainly the effect at a later date, when Antiochus sought to introduce the Greek language and customs. In the Roman period, too, we know that the comparatively mild rule of the conquerors made the Jews only cling the more tenaciously to “the sacred tongue,” at least for all their religious works.]
[We beg leave, however, to dissent almost entirely from Kranichfeld’s views on this head. A far more natural and sufficient reason for the insertion of the Chaldee portions of the book is found in the fact, stated or implied in their respective contents, that they were extracts, taken verbatim and as such from the Babylonian state records. The supposition that the whole book was originally written in Chaldee, and these parts alone left untranslated, is destitute of a particle of confirmation, either in the narrative, the style of the composition, or the usage of the contemporary Jewish writers. Especially the insinuation that Daniel was so ignorant of his mother tongue, that he was obliged to learn it in mature life by a slow and imperfect process, as the author a few sentences further on presumes, is contrary to all the probabilities in the case.]
Jerome, Comm. in Dan. Prophet.: “Contra prophetam Danielem scripsit Porphyrius, nolens eum ab ipso, cuius inscriptus est nomine, esse compositum, sed a quodam, qui temporibus Antiochi Epiphanis fuerit in Judœa; et non tam Danielem Ventura dixisse, quam illum narasse prœterita. Denique quicquid usque ad Antiochum dixerit, veram historiam continere, si quid autem ultra opinatus est, quia futura nescierit, esse mentitum.”
Baba Bathra, f. Dan 15: “Viri Synagogœ magnœ scripserunt K. N. D. G., quibus literis significantur libri Ezechielis, duodecim prophetarum minorum, Danielis et Estherœ.”
Isidore, Origg., vi. Daniel 2:0 : “Ezechiel et Daniel a viris quibusdam sapientibus scripti esse perhibentur.” cf. Hengstenberg, Die Authentic des Daniel, etc., p. 3, where the opinion of Bertholdt (Einl. ins. A. T., 4:1508), that a doubt of the genuineness of Daniel is here implied, is rejected, and certainly with justice.
Cf. Wolf, Bibl. Hebraica, II., p. 161; Bertholdt, as cited above; and especially as affecting Newton’s position on the question of Daniel, the instructive article “Is. Newton” by B……t. in Michaud’s Biographie universelle, tom. XXX, p. 397 ss.
Cf. also Beleuchtung der Geschichte des Kanon, I. 75 et seq.; and Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus, i. 247 et seq., by the same author.
Griesinger, Neue Geschichte der Aufsätze im Buch Daniel, 1812: Gesenius, Allgem. Literaturzeitung, 1816, Nos. 57 and 80; De Wette, Einleitung ins. A.T., § 255 et seq.; Kirmss, Commentatio historico-critica, exhibens descriptionem et censuram recentium de Danielis libro opinionum, Jena, 1850; Redepenning, Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1833, p. 831 et seq.; 1835, p. 163 et seq.; Von Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, 1835; Knobel, Prophetismus der Hebräer, II. 389 et seq.; Hitzig, Kurzgef. exeget. Handbuch zu Daniel, 1850; Stähelin, Spezielle Einleitung in die kanon. BB. des A. Test., 1862; Hilgenfeld, Die jüdische Apokalyptik, 1857. Compare also Dillmann, Ueber die Bildung der Sammlung heiliger Schriften A. Tests., in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1858, p. 458 et seq.; Kahnis, Luther. Dogmatik, I. p. 369 et seq,; Th. Nöldeke, Die alttestamentl. Literatur in einer Reihe von Aufsätzen dargestellt (Leipsic, 1868), p. 216 et seq.; R. Baxmann, Ueber das B. Daniel, Studien una Kritiken, 1863, p. 452 et seq. (against Zündel); and Davidson, Introd. to the Old Test., vol. III., p. 200 ss.
Ueber Verfasser und Zweck des B. Daniel, in the Theol. Zeitschrift of Schleiermacher, De Wette, and Lücke, 1822, III.171 et seq. Further, Die Messianischen Weissagungen im Buche Daniel (Review of Auberlen’s work) in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1860, I.; and Einl. ins A. T., § 254 et seq.
Lüderwald. Die sechs ersten Kapitel Daniels nach historischen Gründen geprüft, Helmstädt, 1787 (against Eichhorn, 1st ed.); Stäudlin, Prüfung einiger Meinungen über den Ursprung des B. Daniel, in den Neuen Beiträgen zur Erläuter-ung der Propheten, Güttingen, 1791 (specially against Corrodi); Beckhaus, Die Integrität der prophetischen Schriften, p. 279 et seq.; Hengstenberg, Beitr. zur Einl. I.; Die Authentie des Daniel und die Integriät des Sacharja, Berlin, 1831; Hävernick, Kommentar über d. Buch Daniel, 1832; Neue krit. Untersuchung über d. Buch Daniel, 1838; Einleitung ins A. T., II.2, p. 444 et seq.; Keil, Einl. § 135 et Seq.; Auberlen, Der Prophet Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis, Basle, 1854; 2d ed., 1857; F. Delitzsch, in Herzog’s Real-Encycklop., Art. Daniel (III.271 et seq.); W. Volck, Vindiciœ Danielicœ, Dorpat, 1866; David Zündel, Kritische Untersuchung über die Abfassungszeit des Buches Daniel, Basle, 1861; Kranichfeld, Der Prophet Daniel, Berlin, 1868, p. 6 et seq.; E. B. Pusey, Daniel the prophet, Oxford, 1864; J. M. Fuller, An essayon the authenticity of the book of Daniel, Cambridge, 1864. J. Jahn, Einl. ins A. Test., II. 624 et seq.; L. Hug, Zeitschrift für das Erzbisthum Freiburg, VI.150; Herbst, Einl. mit zusatz by Welte, II.2, p. 80 et seq.; Scholz, Einl. III.482 et seq.; Speil, De. libri Danielis authentia, Oppolii. 1860, and Zur Echtheit des B. Daniel, in the Tüb. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1863, p. 191 et seq.; Reusch, Einl., 3d ed., p. III et seq.
[We may remark here, once for all, that a simpler reason for the position of Daniel among the Hagiographa rather than among the Prophets, seems to be the fact that the author was not a prophet in the strictly technical sense of the term; i.e., like John the Baptist (John 10:41), he wrought no miracles, and his predictions were not directly inspired, but only given mediately through angels or dreams, like those of Joseph (Genesis 41:15-16). Keil thus expresses it: “The place occupied by this book in the Hebrew canon perfectly corresponds with the place of Daniel in the theocracy. Daniel did not labor, as the rest of the prophets did whose writings form the class of the Nebiyîn, as a prophet among his people in the congregation of Israel, but he was a minister of state under the Chaldæan and Modo-Persian world-rulers. Although, like David and Solomon, he possessed the gift of prophecy, and therefore was called προφήτης (Sept. Josephus, N. T.), yet he was not a נָבִיא, i.e., a prophet in his official position and standing. Therefore his book, in its contents and form, is different from the writings of the Nebiyîn. His prophecies are not prophetical discourses addressed to Israel or the nations, but visions, in which the development of the world-kingdoms and their relation to the kingdom of God are unveiled, and the historical part of his book describes events of the time when Israel went into captivity among the heathen. For these reasons his book is not placed in the class of the Nebiyîn, which reaches from Joshua to Malachi,—for these, according to the view of him who arranged the canon, are wholly the writings of such as held the prophetic office, i.e., the office requiring them openly, by word of mouth and by writing, to announce the word of God,—but in the class of the Kethubin, which comprehends sacred writings of different kinds, whose common character consists in this, that their authors did not fill the prophetic office, as, e.g., Jonah in the theocracy; which is confirmed by the fact that the Lamentations of Jeremiah are comprehended in this class, since Jeremiah uttered these Lamentations over the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah not as a prophet but as a member of that nation which was chastened by the Lord” (Commentary on Dan., Introd., p. 29, 30, Edinb. ed.).]
[A better solution of the difficulty is proposed by Rawlinson (Herodotus, i. 424, Am. ed.), as being suggested by the recently discovered inscriptions on the Babylonian monuments. “According to Berosus, Nabonadius was not in Babylon, but at Borsippa, at the time when Babylon was taken, having fled to that comparatively unimportant city when his army was defeated in the field (apud Joseph. Contra Apion, I.21). He seems, however, to have left in Babylon a representative in the person of his son, whom a few years previously he had associated with him in the government. This prince, whose name is read as Bil-shar-uzur, and who may be identified as the Belshazzar of Daniel, appears to have taken the command in the city when Nabonadius threw himself for some unexplained reason into Borsippa, which was undoubtedly a strong fortress, and was also one of the chief seats of Chaldæan learning, but which assuredly could not compare, either for magnificence or for strength, with Babylon, and Belshazzar, who was probably a mere youth, left to enjoy the supreme power without check or control, neglected the duty of watching the enemy, and gave himself up to enjoyment.” “Two difficulties stand in the way of this identification, which (if accepted) solve one of the most intricate problems of ancient history. The first is the relationship in which the Belshazzar of Scripture stands to Nebuchadnezzar, which is throughout represented as that of son (verses 2, 11, 13, 18, etc.); the second is the accession immediately of ‘Darius the Mede.’ With respect to the first of these, it may be remarked that although Nabonadius was not a descendant, or indeed any relative of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar may have been, and very probably was. Nabu-nahit, on seizing the supreme power, would naturally seek to strengthen his position by marriage with a daughter of the great king, whose son, son-in-law, and grandson had successively held the throne. He may have taken to wife Neriglissar’s widow, or he may have married some other daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar may thus have been grandson of Nebuchadnezzar on the mother’s side. It is some confirmation of these probabilities or possibilities to find that the name of Nebuchadnezzar was used as a family name by Nabu-nahit. He must certainly have had a son to whom he gave that appellation, or it would not have been assumed by two pretenders in succession, who sought to personate the legitimate heir to the Babylonian throne.” The second objection, respecting the immediate succession of “Darius the Mede,” is elsewhere considered, and applies not particularly to this identification.]
See especially p. 35 et seq.: “The remarkable incident of the mysterious writing (Daniel 5:5 et seq.), which raised Daniel to be the third ruler over the kingdom, and which of itself would have aroused attention and excited remark, the interpretation which connected two events as contemporary, and the fact that some of the events foretold in the mysterious writing actually came to pass the same night—all these taken together might, in the course of time, give rise, even among the natives, to the legend that the remaining facts contained in the writing and its interpretation transpired in that night as well; and this might occur still more easily among foreigners, in view of the clouded form which the tradition would naturally assume among them, as, e.g., in the case of the Persians. Whether the recollection of the writing and interpretation were preserved or not would probably not modify the legend. In this way the Persian and Median tradition might easily conceive of the natural son of Nebuchadnezzar, who was murdered in that night, as being also the last Chaldæan king, and could therefore designate him by the name Λαβύνητος, which is found to correspond with the name of the last king in Berosus —Ναβόννηδος. In addition to the name which Herodotus gives to the king in question in agreement with Berosus, such a confusion of two distinct facts by the tradition is confirmed by the circumstance that these authors, in contrast with Xenophon, speak of a battle which preceded the taking of Babylon, and further, that Herodotus does not allude to the presence of Nabonidus, nor to his death, on the occasion of the fall of the city—thus agreeing with Berosus, who relates that that king had retreated towards Borsippa. Thus the facts in relation to the fall of the Chaldæan dynasty, as they are preserved in Berosus, were thrown together and commingled with the statements of Daniel, concerning the wonderful writing (in which the end of the king and of his empire were co-ordinated); and this cloudy tradition is before us in the accounts of Herodotus and Xenophon, while the correct account, as it is given in Daniel 5:0, forms the transition from the sketch in Berosus, to the form which it assumed in Herodotus and Xenophon.”
[Yet this usage of אב for forefather is a very common one, as any Hebrew Lexicon will show.]
[The cuneiform inscriptions show that Sargon was Shalmaneser’s son and successor.]
[It is beset, however, with many insuperable difficulties, the chief of which are cited and but imperfectly met in the foregoing discussion. The hypothesis has far less to recommend it than the identification of Belshazzar with Nabonadius’s son—Balsaruzur of the inscriptions. See foot-note at the end of No. 2 above.]
[But this identification of the Ahasuerus of Esther with Artaxerxes Longimanus instead of Xerxes is beset with so many difficulties that it is now almost universally rejected.]
[On the ground of the superior authority, however, of the other Greek historians over the single testimony of the romance of Xenophon, this identification of “Darius the Mede” with Cyaxares II, or even the existence of the latter, is still strongly contested by many writers on classical history, who do not seem to allow the passage in Daniel sufficient weight in the discussion.]
[We need hardly point out to the student how purely conjectural and subjective is this supposition of the interpolation of certain parts of these wonderful prophecies, nor how fatal to the genuineness of the book as a whole is such an admission. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Who is to draw the line of distinction between the authentic and the spurious parts? None is apparent in the text, and if interpreters are allowed to pick and choose for themselves what they conceive it likely that God would have revealed, and what they may be free to attribute to later hands, the whole ground is virtually conceded to Rationalism. The true explanation of the minuteness of the prophecies in Daniel 11:0 of Daniel lies In their intimate connection with the nearer future of the chosen people, and the fact that Antiochus Epiphanes, being the first foreign persecutor of the Jewish religion as such, is set forth as the type of all coming Antichrists.]
[Dr. Pusey, the latest scholarly advocate of this reference of the fourth kingdom to Rome (pagan rather than papal), offers the following special considerations in its favor (p. 69 et seq.): 1. “Even an opponent (De Wette, in the Hall. Encykl. s. v. Daniel) has said, ‘It is in favor of this interpretation [of the 4th empire as Roman] that the two feet of iron can be referred to the eastern and western emperors.’ ” But so is the 3d empire described by the plural “breasts (חֲדוֹהִי) and arms,” where the Medo-Persian coalition affords but a faint parallel. 2. “The ten horns are explained to be kings or kingdoms which should issue out of it. ‘And the ten horns out of (i.e., going forth from) this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise.’ Throughout these prophecies the king represents the kingdom, and the kingdom is concentrated in its king. The kings, then, or kingdoms, which should arise out of this kingdom must, from the force of the term as well as from the context, be kings or kingdoms which should arise at some later stage of its existence, not those first kings without which it could not be a kingdom at all.” The force of this reasoning is somewhat difficult to perceive, and its whole validity is destroyed by the Masoretic accents of the text quoted, which should be translated thus: “The ten horns [are] the kingdom thence, [namely] ten kings [that] shall arise.” 3. “These ten horns or kingdoms are also to be contemporaneous. They are all prior in time to the little horn which is to arise out of them. ‘Another shall arise after them, and is diverse from the rest.’ Yet the ten horns or kingdoms are to continue on together until the eleventh shall have risen up; for it is to rise up among them and destroy three of them.” The inconclusiveness of this argument is palpable. Antiochus certainly was later than his predecessors, but of the same line, and he displaced three of them. The correspondence is as perfect as could be desired; far more so than on any other scheme. 4. “The period after the destruction of that power [the eleventh horn], and of the whole fourth kingdom which is to perish with him, is indicated by these words: ‘And the rest of the beasts (the other kingdoms), their dominion was taken away, yet their lives were prolonged on’ to the time appointed by God. The sentence seems most naturally to relate to a time after the destruction of the 4th empire; for it continues the description.” This was exactly true of the Maccabæan deliverance, which for the first time effected the independence of the Jews from Antiochus, who was but the sequel and climax of the long subjugation ever since the captivity. If the theory in question has no better support than these arguments, it is weak indeed. Its main prop, as to pagan Rome, is the superficial resemblance in the extent and power of the latter—which is at once dissipated when the prophecy is viewed from the stand-point of the Jewish martyrs; and as to papal Rome, its great bulwark is the year-for-a-day interpretation, with the overthrow of which it utterly falls. The subject is argued at length by Dr. Cowles, Commentary on Daniel, p. 354 et seq.].
Cf. Jerome, Comm. in Daniel 4:16; “Septuaginta hœc omnia nescio qua rations prœterierunt. Unde judicio magistrorum Ecclesiœ editio eorum in hoc volumine repudiata est et Theodotionis vulgo legitur, quœ et Hebrœo et cœteris translatoribus congruit.”
Jerome, Comm. in Dan. proph.: “Sed et hoc nosse debemus, inter cœtera Porphyrium de Danielis libro nobis objicere, idcirco illum apparere confictum, nec haberi apud Hebræos, sed Grœci sermonis esse commentum: quia in Susannœ fabula contineatur, dicente Daniele ad presbyteros, ἀπὸ τοῦ σχίνου σχίσαι, καὶ�, quam etymologiam magis Grœco sermoni convenire quam Hebœo, cui et Eusebius et Apollinaris pari sententia responderunt; Susannœ Belisque, et Draconis fabulas non contineri in Hebraico, sed partem esse prophetiœ Habacuc filii Jesu,” etc.
The fragments of several other patristical expositors of Daniel, e.g. Ammonius, Polychronius, Apollinaris, Eudoxius, may be fonnd in the commentary of H. Broughton, mentioned below (Danielis visiones Chald. et Hebr., Basil., 1599), in connection with the expositions of Hippolytus and others.
This work of Leyser’s has been published in six parts tinder various titles: (1) Scholia Babylonica, n. e. ecclesiastica. commentationes in cap. 1. Danielis, Francof., 1609; (2) Colossus Babylonicus guatuor mundi monarchias reprcesentans, s. eccl. expositio cap. 2. Danielis, Darmst., 1609; (3) Fornax Babylonica, sincerœ religionis confessores probans, s. eccl. exp. cap. 3. Dan., Francof., 1610; (4) Cedrus Babylonica, potentes docens humilitatem et detestans superbiam, s. eccl. exp. cap. 4. Dan., Francof., 1610; (5) Epulum Babylonicum, in quo causœ interitus imperiorum et regnorum spectandœ ob oculos proponuntur, 8. eccl. exp. cap. V. Dan., Darmst., 1619; (6) Aula Persica, ostendens pietatem ab invidia aulica premi, sed nequaquam opprimi, s. eccl. exp. cap. 7. Dan., Darmst., 1610.
the Fifth Week after Epiphany