Комментарии к Библии

This chapter gives us a more particular account of the beginning of Daniel's life, his original and education, than we have of any other of the prophets. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, began immediately with divine visions; but Daniel began with the study of human learning, and was afterwards honoured with divine visions; such variety of methods has God taken in training up men for the service of his church. We have here, I. Jehoiakim's first captivity (Da 1:1,2), in which Daniel, with others of the seed-royal, was carried to Babylon. II. The choice made of Daniel, and some other young men, to be brought up in the Chaldean literature, that they might be fitted to serve the government, and the provision made for them, Da 1:3-7. III. Their pious refusal to eat the portion of the king's meat, and their determining to live upon pulse and water, which, having tried it, the master of the eunuchs allowed them to do, finding that it agreed very well with them, Da 1:8-16. IV. Their wonderful improvement, above all their fellows, in wisdom and knowledge, Da 1:17-21.

INTRODUCTION

DANIEL, that is, "God is my judge"; probably of the blood royal (compare

Da 1:3, with 1Ch 3:1,

where a son of David is named so). Jerusalem may have been his birthplace (though

Da 9:24,

"thy holy city," does not necessarily imply this). He was carried to Babylon among the Hebrew captives brought thither by Nebuchadnezzar at the first deportation in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. As he and his three companions are called

(Da 1:4)

"children," he cannot have been more than about twelve years old when put in training, according to Eastern etiquette, to be a courtier

(Da 1:3, 6).

He then received a new name, by which it was usual to mark a change in one's condition

(2Ki 23:34; 24:17; Ezr 5:14; Es 2:7),

Belteshazzar, that is, "a prince favored by Bel"

(Da 1:7).

His piety and wisdom were proverbial among his countrymen at an early period; probably owing to that noble proof he gave of faithfulness, combined with wisdom, in abstaining from the food sent to him from the king's table, as being polluted by the idolatries usual at heathen banquets

(Da 1:8-16).

Hence Ezekiel's reference to him

(Eze 14:14, 20; 28:3)

is precisely of that kind we should expect; a coincidence which must be undesigned. Ezekiel refers to him not as a writer, but as exhibiting a character righteous and wise in discerning secrets, in those circumstances now found in his book, which are earlier than the time when Ezekiel wrote. As Joseph rose in Egypt by interpreting Pharaoh's dreams, so Daniel, by interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's, was promoted to be governor of Babylonia, and president of the Magian priest-caste. Under Evil-merodach, Nebuchadnezzar's successor, as a change of officers often attends the accession of a new king, Daniel seems to have had a lower post, which led him occasionally to be away from Babylon

(Da 8:2, 27).

Again he came into note when he read the mystic writing of Belshazzar's doom on the wall on the night of that monarch's impious feast. BEROSUS calls the last Babylonian king Nabonidus and says he was not killed, but had an honorable abode in Carmania assigned to him, after having surrendered voluntarily in Borsippa. RAWLINSON has cleared up the discrepancy from the Nineveh inscription. Belshazzar was joint king with his father, Evil-merodach or Nabonidus (called Minus in the inscriptions), to whom he was subordinate. He shut himself up in Babylon, while the other king took refuge elsewhere, namely, in Borsippa. BEROSUS gives the Chaldean account, which suppresses all about Belshazzar, as being to the national dishonor. Had Daniel been a late book, he would no doubt have taken up the later account of BEROSUS. If he gave a history differing from that current in Babylonia, the Jews of that region would not have received it as true. Darius the Mede, or Cyaxares II, succeeded and reigned two years. The mention of this monarch's reign, almost unknown to profane history (being eclipsed by the splendor of Cyrus) is an incidental proof that Daniel wrote as a contemporary historian of events which he knew, and did not borrow from others. In the third year of Cyrus he saw the visions (the tenth through twelfth chapters) relating to his people down to the latest days and the coming resurrection. He must have been about eighty-four years old at this time. Tradition represents Daniel as having died and been buried at Shushan. Though his advanced age did not allow him to be among those who returned to Palestine, yet he never ceased to have his people's interests nearest to his heart

(Da 9:3-19; 10:12).

AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL.

Da 7:1, 28; 8:2; 9:2; 10:1, 2; 12:4, 5,

testify that it was composed by Daniel himself. He does not mention himself in the first six chapters, which are historical; for in these it is not the author, but the events which are the prominent point. In the last six, which are prophetical, the author makes himself known, for here it was needed, prophecy being a revelation of words to particular men. It holds a third rank in the Hebrew canon: not among the prophets, but in the Hagiographa (Chetubim), between Esther and Ezra, books like it relating to the captivity; because he did not strictly belong to those who held exclusively the profession of "prophets" in the theocracy, but was rather a "seer," having the gift, but not the office of prophet. Were the book an interpolated one, it doubtless would have been placed among the prophets. Its present position is a proof of its genuineness, as it was deliberately put in a position different from that where most would expect to find it. Placed between Esther, and Ezra and Nehemiah, it separated the historical books of the time after the captivity. Thus, Daniel was, as BENGEL calls him, the politician, chronologer, and historian among the prophets. The Psalms also, though many are prophetical, are ranked with the Hagiographa, not with the prophets; and the Revelation of John is separated from his Epistles, as Daniel is from the Old Testament prophets. Instead of writing in the midst of the covenant people, and making them the foreground of his picture, he writes in a heathen court, the world kingdoms occupying the foreground, and the kingdom of God, though ultimately made the most significant, the background. His peculiar position in the heathen court is reflected in his peculiar position in the canon. As the "prophets" in the Old Testament, so the epistles of the apostles in the New Testament were written by divinely commissioned persons for their contemporaries. But Daniel and John were not in immediate contact with the congregation, but isolated and alone with God, the one in a heathen court, the other on a lonely isle

(Re 1:9).

PORPHYRY, the assailant of Christianity in the third century, asserted that the Book of Daniel was a forgery of the time of the Maccabees (170-164 B.C.), a time when confessedly there were no prophets, written after the events as to Antiochus Epiphanes, which it professes to foretell; so accurate are the details. A conclusive proof of Daniel's inspiration, if his prophecies can be shown to have been before the events. Now we know, from JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 10.11.7], that the Jews in Christ's days recognized Daniel as in the canon. Zechariah, Ezra, and Nehemiah, centuries before Antiochus, refer to it. Jesus refers to it in His characteristic designation, "Son of man,"

Mt 24:30

(Da 7:13);

also expressly by name, and as a "prophet," in

Mt 24:15

(compare

Mt 24:21, with Da 12:1,

&c.); and in the moment that decided His life

(Mt 26:64)

or death, when the high priest adjured him by the living God. Also, in

Lu 1:19-26,

"Gabriel" is mentioned, whose name occurs nowhere else in Scripture, save in

Da 8:16; 9:21.

Besides the references to it in Revelation, Paul confirms the prophetical part of it, as to the blasphemous king

(Da 7:8, 25; 11:36),

in

1Co 6:2; 2Th 2:3, 4;

the narrative part, as to the miraculous deliverances from "the lions" and "the fire," in

Heb 11:33, 34.

Thus the book is expressly attested by the New Testament on the three points made the stumbling-block of neologists--the predictions, the narratives of miracles, and the manifestations of angels. An objection has been stated to the unity of the book, namely, that Jesus quotes no part of the first half of Daniel. But

Mt 21:44

would be an enigma if it were not a reference to the "stone that smote the image"

(Da 2:34, 35, 44, 45).

Thus the New Testament sanctions the second, third, sixth, seventh, and eleventh chapters. The design of the miracles in the heathen courts where Daniel was, as of those of Moses in Egypt, was to lead the world power, which seemed to be victorious over the theocracy, to see the essential inner superiority of the seemingly fallen kingdom of God to itself, and to show prostrate Israel that the power of God was the same as of old in Egypt. The first book of Maccabees (compare 1 Maccabees 1:24; 9:27, 40, with

Da 12:1; 11:26,

of the Septuagint) refers to Daniel as an accredited book, and even refers to the Septuagint Alexandrian version of it. The fact of Daniel having a place in the Septuagint shows it was received by the Jews at large prior to the Maccabean times. The Septuagint version so arbitrarily deviated from the Hebrew Daniel, that Theodotius' version was substituted for it in the early Christian Church. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.8.5] mentions that Alexander the Great had designed to punish the Jews for their fidelity to Darius, but that Jaddua (332 B.C.), the high priest, met him at the head of a procession and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's prophecy that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. Certain it is, Alexander favored the Jews, and JOSEPHUS' statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the Jews in JOSEPHUS' days believed that Daniel was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees. With Jaddua (high priest from 341-322 B.C.) the Old Testament history ends

(Ne 12:11).

(The register of the priests and Levites was not written by Nehemiah, who died about 400 B.C., but was inserted with divine sanction by the collectors of the canon subsequently.) An objection to Daniel's authenticity has been rested on a few Greek words found in it. But these are mostly names of Greek musical instruments, which were imported by Greece from the East, rather than vice versa. Some of the words are derived from the common Indo-Germanic stock of both Greek and Chaldee: hence their appearance in both tongues. And one or two may have come through the Greeks of Asia Minor to the Chaldee. The fact that from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh, the language is Chaldee, but the rest Hebrew, is not an argument against, but for, its authenticity. So in Ezra the two languages are found. The work, if that of one author, must have been composed by someone in the circumstances of Daniel, that is, by one familiar with both languages. No native-born Hebrew who had not lived in Chaldea would know Chaldee so well as to use it with the same idiomatic ease as his native tongue; the very impurities in Daniel's use of both are just such as were natural to one in his circumstances, but unnatural to one in a later age, or to one not half Hebrew, half Chaldean in residence as Daniel was. Those parts of Daniel which concern the whole world are mostly Chaldee, then the language of the world empire. So Greek was made the language of the New Testament, which was designed for the whole world. Those affecting the Jews, mostly Hebrew; and this not so impure as that of Ezekiel. His Chaldee is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. Two predictions alone are enough to prove to us that Daniel was a true prophet. (1) That his prophecies reach beyond Antiochus; namely, he foretells the rise of the four great monarchies, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (the last not being in Daniel's time known beyond the precincts of Italy, or rather of Latium), and that no other earthly kingdom would subvert the fourth, but that it would divide into parts. All this has come to pass. No fifth great earthly monarchy has arisen, though often attempted, as by Charlemagne, Charles V, and Napoleon. (2) The time of Messiah's advent, as dated from a certain decree, His being cut off, and the destruction of the city. "He who denies Daniel's prophecies," says SIR ISAAC NEWTON, "undermines Christianity, which is founded on Daniel's prophecies concerning Christ."

CHARACTERISTICS OF DANIEL. The vision mode of revelation is the exception in other prophets, the rule in Daniel. In Zechariah

(Zec 1:1-6:15),

who lived after Daniel, the same mode appears, but the other form from the seventh chapter to the end. The Revelation of St. John alone is perfectly parallel to Daniel, which may be called the Old Testament Apocalypse. In the contents too there is the difference above noticed, that he views the kingdom of God from the standpoint of the world kingdoms, the development of which is his great subject. This mode of viewing it was appropriate to his own position in a heathen court, and to the relation of subjection in which the covenant-people then stood to the world powers. No longer are single powers of the world incidentally introduced, but the universal monarchies are the chief theme, in which the worldly principle, opposed to the kingdom of God, manifests itself fully. The near and distant are not seen in the same perspective, as by the other prophets, who viewed the whole future from the eschatological point; but in Daniel the historical details are given of that development of the world powers which must precede the advent of the kingdom [AUBERLEN].

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY. The exile is the historical basis of Daniel's prophecies, as Daniel implies in the first chapter, which commences with the beginning, and ends with the termination, of the captivity

(Da 1:1, 21;

compare

Da 9:1, 2).

A new stage in the theocracy begins with the captivity. Nebuchadnezzar made three incursions into Judah. The first under Jehoiakim (606 B.C.), in which Daniel was carried away, subjected the theocracy to the Babylonian world power. The second (598 B.C.) was that in which Jehoiachin and Ezekiel were carried away. In the third (588 B.C.), Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and carried away Zedekiah. Originally, Abraham was raised out of the "sea"

(Da 7:2)

of the nations, as an island holy to God, and his seed chosen as God's mediator of His revelations of love to mankind. Under David and Solomon, the theocracy, as opposed to the heathen power, attained its climax in the Old Testament, not only being independent, but lord of the surrounding nations; so that the period of these two kings was henceforth made the type of the Messianic. But when God's people, instead of resting on Him, seek alliance with the world power, that very power is made the instrument of their chastisement. So Ephraim (722 B.C.) fell by Assyria; and Judah also, drawn into the sphere of the world's movements from the time of Ahaz, who sought Assyrian help (740 B.C.,

Isa 7:1-25)

at last fell by Babylon, and thenceforth has been more or less dependent on the world monarchies, and so, till Messiah, was favored with no revelations from the time of Malachi (four hundred years). Thus, from the beginning of the exile, the theocracy, in the strict sense, ceased on earth; the rule of the world powers superseding it. But God's covenant with Israel remains firm

(Ro 11:29);

therefore, a period of blessing under Messiah's kingdom is now foretold as about to follow their long chastisement. The exile thus is the turning point in the history of the theocracy, which ROOS thus divides: (1) From Adam to the exodus out of Egypt. (2) From the exodus to the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. (3) From the captivity to the millennium. (4) From the millennium to the end of the world. The position of Daniel in the Babylonian court was in unison with the altered relations of the theocracy and the world power, which new relation was to be the theme of his prophecy. Earlier prophets, from the standpoint of Israel, treated of Israel in its relation to the world powers; Daniel, from Babylon, the center of the then world power, treats of the world powers in their relation to Israel. His seventy years' residence in Babylon, and his high official position there, gave him an insight into the world's politics, fitting him to be the recipient of political revelations; while his spiritual experiences, gained through Nebuchadnezzar's humiliation, Belshazzar's downfall, and the rapid decay of the Babylonian empire itself, as well as the miraculous deliverances of himself and his friends (the third through sixth chapters), all fitted him for regarding things from the spiritual standpoint, from which the world's power appears transient, but the glory of God's kingdom eternal. As his political position was the body, the school of magicians in which he had studied for three years

(Da 1:4, 5)

was the soul; and his mind strong in faith and nourished by the earlier prophecies

(Da 9:2),

the spirit of his prophecy, which only waited for the spirit of revelation from above to kindle it. So God fits His organs for their work. AUBERLEN compares Daniel to Joseph: the one at the beginning, the other at the end of the Jewish history of revelation; both representatives of God and His people at heathen courts; both interpreters of the dim presentiments of truth, expressed in God-sent dreams, and therefore raised to honor by the powers of the world: so representing Israel's calling to be a royal priesthood among the nations; and types of Christ, the true Israel, and of Israel's destination to be a light to lighten the whole Gentile world, as

Ro 11:12, 15

foretells. As Achilles at the beginning, and Alexander at the end, of Grecian history are the mirrors of the whole life of the Hellenic people, so Joseph and Daniel of Israel.

CONTENTS OF THE BOOK. Historical and biographical introduction in the first chapter. Daniel, a captive exile, is representative of his nation in its servitude and exile: while his heavenly insight into dreams, far exceeding that of the magi, represents the divine superiority of the covenant-people over their heathen lords. The high dignities, even in the world, which he thereby attained, typify the giving of the earth-kingdom at last "to the people of the saints of the Most High"

(Da 7:27).

Thus Daniel's personal history is the typical foundation of his prophecy. The prophets had to experience in themselves, and in their age, something of what they foretold about future times; just as David felt much of Christ's sufferings in his own person (compare

Ho 1:2-9, 10, 11; 2:3).

So

Jon 1:1-17,

&c. [ROOS]. Hence biographical notices of Daniel and his friends are inserted among his prophecies. The second through twelfth chapters contain the substance of the book, and consist of two parts. The first (the second through seventh chapters) represents the development of the world powers, viewed from a historical point. The second (the eighth through twelfth chapters), their development in relation to Israel, especially in the future preceding Christ's first advent, foretold in the ninth chapter. But prophecy looks beyond the immediate future to the complete fulfilment in the last days, since the individual parts in the organic history of salvation cannot be understood except in connection with the whole. Also Israel looked forward to the Messianic time, not only for spiritual salvation, but also for the visible restoration of the kingdom which even now we too expect. The prophecy which they needed ought therefore to comprise both, and so much of the history of the world as would elapse before the final consummation. The period of Daniel's prophecies, therefore, is that from the downfall of the theocracy at the captivity till its final restoration, yet future--the period of the dominion of the world powers, not set aside by Christ's first coming

(Joh 18:36;

for, to have taken the earth-kingdom then, would have been to take it from Satan's hands,

Mt 4:8-10),

but to be superseded by His universal and everlasting kingdom at His second coming

(Re 11:15).

Thus the general survey of the development and final destiny of the world powers (the second through seventh chapters) fittingly precedes the disclosures as to the immediate future (the eighth through twelfth chapters). Daniel marks the division by writing the first part in Chaldee, and the second, and the introduction, in Hebrew; the former, referring to the powers of the world, in the language of the then dominant world power under which he lived; the latter, relating to the people of God, in their own language. An interpolator in a later age would have used Hebrew, the language of the ancient prophets throughout, or if anywhere Aramaic, so as to be understood by his contemporaries, he would have used it in the second rather than in the first part as having a more immediate reference to his own times [AUBERLEN].

Introduction to the Book of Daniel

Section I. The Life of Daniel

Of Daniel little more is known, or can now be ascertained, than is recorded in this book. There are two other persons of this name mentioned in the Bible - a son of David 1 Chronicles 3:1; and a Levite of the race of Ithamar Ezra 8:2; Nehemiah 10:6. The latter has been sometimes confounded with the prophet, as he is in the apocryphal addenda to the Septuagint.

Daniel, supposed commonly to be the same person as the author of this book, is twice mentioned by Ezekiel, once as deserving to be ranked with Noah and Job, and once as eminent for wisdom. "Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God" Ezekiel 14:14. "Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee" Ezekiel 28:3. Whether this is the Daniel who is the author of this book, however or whether this was some ancient patriarch whose name had been handed down by tradition, and whose name was assumed" by the author of this book in later times, has been a question among recent critics, and will properly come up for examination under the next section in this Introduction.

Assuming now that the book is genuine, and that it was written by him whose name it bears, all that is known of Daniel is substantially as follows:

He was descended from one of the highest families in Judah, if not one of royal blood (notes at Daniel 1:3; Josephus' Ant. b. x. chapter x. Section 1). His birthplace was probably Jerusalem (compare Daniel 9:24), though it is not absolutely certain that this passage would demonstrate it.

Of his first years nothing is recorded. At an early age we find him in Babylon, among the captive Hebrews whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away at the first deportation of the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. He is mentioned in connection with three other youths, apparently of the same rank, Hananiah, Mishacl, and Azariah, who, with him, were selected for the purpose of being instructed in the language and literature of the Chaldeans, with a view to their being employed in the service of the court Daniel 1:3-4. His age at that time it is impossible to determine with accuracy, but it is not; improbable that it was somewhere about twelve or fifteen years. In Daniel 1:4, he and his three friends are called "children" (ילדם yelâdı̂ym). "This word properly denotes the period from the age of childhood up to manhood, and might be translated boys, lads, or youth" - (Prof. Stuart on Daniel, p. 373).

Ignatius (Ep. ad Magn.) says that Daniel was twelve years of age when he went into exile; Chrysostom says that he was eighteen (Opp, vi., p. 423); Epiphanius says, ἔτι νήπιος ὤν eti nēpios ōn; Jerome calls him admodum puer. These are, of course, mere conjectures, or traditions, but they are probably not far from the truth. Such was the age at which persons would be most likely to be selected for the training here referred to. The design of this selection and training is not mentioned, but in the circumstances of the case it is perhaps not difficult to conjecture it. The Hebrews were a captive people. It was natural to suppose that they would be restless, and perhaps insubordinate, in their condition, and it was a matter of policy to do all that could be done to conciliate them. Nothing would better tend to this than to select some of their own number who were of their most distinguished families; to place them at court; to provide for them from the royal bounty; to give them the advantages of the best education that the capital afforded; to make an arrangement that contemplated their future employment in the service of the state, and to furnish them every opportunity of promotion. Besides, in the dialog of the government with the captive Hebrews, of which, from the nature of the case, there would be frequent occasion, it would be an advantage to have native-born Hebrews in the confidence of the government, who could be employed to conduct that contact.

In this situation, and with this view, Daniel received that thorough education which Oriental etiquette makes indispensable in a courtier (compare Plato, Alcib. Section 37), and was more especially instructed in the science of the Chaldeans, and in speaking and writing their language. He had before evidently been carefully trained in the Hebrew learning, and in the knowledge of the institutions of his country, and was thoroughly imbued with the principles of the religion of his fathers. An opportunity soon occurred of putting his principles to the test. Trained in strict religious principles, and in the sternest rules of temperance in cating and drinking, and fearing the effect of the luxurious living provided for him and his companions by the royal bounty, he resolved, with them, to avoid at once the danger of conforming to the habits of idolaters; of "polluting" himself by customs forbidden by his religion, and of jeoparding his own health and life by intemperate indulgence. He aimed, also, to secure the utmost vigour of body, and the utmost clearness of mind, by a course of strict and conscientious temperance. He obtained permission, therefore, to abstain from the food provided for him, and to make an experiment of the most temperate mode of living Daniel 1:8-14. "His prudent proceedings, wise bearing, and absolute refusal to comply with such customs, were crowned with the divine blessing, and had the most splendid results."

After the lapse of three years spent in this course of discipline, Daniel passed the examination which was necessary to admit him to the royal favor, and was received into connection with the government, to be employed in the purposes which had been contemplated in this preparatory training Daniel 1:18-20. One of his first acts was an interpretation of a dream of Nebuchadnezzar, which none of the Chaldeans had been able to interpret, the result of which was that he was raised at once to that important office, the governorship of the province of Babylon, and the head inspectorship of the sacerdotal caste Daniel 2.

Considerably later in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, we find Daniel interpreting another dream of his, to the effect that, in consequence of Iris pride, he would be deprived for a time of his reason and his throne, and would be suffered to wander from the abodes of men, and to live among wild beasts, but that after a time he would be again restored. The record which we have of this is found in a proclamation of the king himself, which is preserved by Daniel Dan. 4. In the interpretation of this remarkable dream, and in stating to the king - the most proud and absolute monarch of the earth at that time - what would come upon him, Daniel displays the most touching anxiety, love, and loyalty for the prince, and shows that he was led to this interpretation only by the conviction of the truth. In view of a calamity so great, he exhorted the monarch yet to humble himself and to repent of his sins, and to perform acts of charity, with the hope that God might be merciful, and avert from him a doom so humiliating - so much to be dreaded Daniel 4:19-27.

Under the immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar - Evil-Merodaeh - Daniel appears to have been forgotten, and his talents and his former services seem to have passed away from the recollection of those in power. His situation at court appears to have been confined to an inferior office Daniel 8:27, and it would seem also that this led him occasionally, if not regularly, away from Babylon to some of the provinces to attend to business there. (Compare the notes at Daniel 8:2). This was not strange. On the death of a monarch, it was not unusual to discharge the officers who had been employed in the government, as, at the present time, on the death of a king, or a change of dynasty, the members of the cabinet are changed; or as the same thing happens in our own country when a change occurs in the chief magistracy of the nation. Sir John Chardin, in his Manuscript Notes on Persia, says that, in his time, on the death of a Shah or king, all the soothsayers and physicians attached to the court were at once dismissed from office; the former because they did not predict his death, and the latter because they did not prevent it.

It is to be remembered also, that Daniel was raised to power by the will of Nebuchadnezzar alone, and that the offices which he held were, in part, in consequence of the service which he had rendered that prince; and it is not strange, therefore, that on a change of the government, he, with perhaps the other favorites of the former sovereign, should be suffered to retire. We find consequently no mention made of Daniel during the reign of Evil-Merodach, or in the short reign of his successor; we lose sight of him until the reign of Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon, and then he is mentioned only in connection with the closing scene of his life Daniel 5. In consequence of a remarkable vision which Belshazzar had of a handwriting on the wall, and of the inability of any of the wise men of the Chaldeans to read and interpret it, Daniel, at the instance of the queen-mother, who remembered his former services at court, was called in, and read the writing, and announced to the king the impending destiny of himself and his empire. For this service he was again restored to honor, and the purpose was formed to raise him to an exalted rank at court - a purpose which was, however, frustrated by the fact that Babylon was that very night taken, and that the government passed into the hands of the Medes and Persians. It was under this king, however, that Daniel had two of his most remarkable visions Daniel 7; 8 respecting future events - visions which, perhaps, more definitely than any other in the Scriptures, disclose what is to occur in the ages to come.

After the conquest of Babylon by the united arms of the Medes and Persians, under the reign of Darius or Cyaxares, Daniel was raised again to an exalted station. The whole kingdom was divided into one hundred and twenty provinces, and over these three presidents or chief governors were appointed, and of these Daniel had the first rank Daniel 6:1-3. The reasons of this appointment are not stated, but they were doubtless found in such circumstances as the following: that it was desirable for Darius to employ some one who was familiar with the affairs of the Babylonian empire; that Daniel probably had knowledge on that subject equal or superior to any other one that could be found; that, he had long been employed at court, and was familiar with the laws, usages, and customs that prevailed there; that he knew better than anyone else, perhaps, what would secure the tranquility of that portion of the empire; that, being himself a foreigner, it might be supposed better to employ him than it would be a native Chaldean, for it might be presumed that he would be less inimical to a foreign dominion.

Under these circumstances he was again raised to a high rank among the officers of the government; but his elevation was not beheld without malice and envy. Those who might have expected this office for themselves, or who were dissatisfied that a foreigner should be thus exalted, resolved, if possible, to bring him into such a situation as would ruin him Daniel 6:4. To do this, they determined to take advantage of a principle in the government of the Medes and Persians, that a law having once received the royal sanction could not be changed; and by securing the passing of such a law as they knew Daniel would not obey, they hoped to humble and ruin him. They, therefore, under plausible pretences, secured the passing of a law that no one in the realm should be allowed for a certain time to offer any petition to any God or man, except the king, on penalty of being thrown into a den of lions. Daniel, as they anticipated, was the first to disregard this law, by continuing his regular habit of worshipping God, praying, as he had been accustomed, three times a-day, with his window open. The consequence was, that the king, there being no way to prevent the execution of the law, allowed it to be executed. Daniel was cast into the den of lions, but was miraculously preserved; and this new proof of his integrity, and of the divine favor, was the means of his being raised to more exalted honor Daniel 6.

In this situation at court, and with these advantages for promoting the interests of his people, he employed himself in seriously and diligently securing the return of the exiles to their own country, though it does not appear that he himself returned, or that he contemplated a return. It is probable that he supposed that at his time of life it would not be wise to attempt such a journey; or that he supposed he could be of more use to his countrymen in Babylon in favoring their return than he could by accompanying them to their own land. His position at the court of the Medo-Persian government gave him an opportunity of rendering material aid to his people, and it is not improbable that it was through his instrumentality that the decree was obtained from Cyrus which allowed them to return. One of the designs of Providence in raising him up was, doubtless, that he might exert that influence at court, and that he might thus be the means of restoring the exiles. He had at last the happiness to see his most ardent wishes accomplished in this respect.

In the third year of Cyrus, he had a vision, or a series of visions Daniel 10-12, containing minute details respecting the history and sufferings of his nation to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, concluding with a more general representation Daniel 12:1-13 of what would occur in the last days of the world's history.

Beyond this, nothing certain is known of Daniel. The accounts respecting him are vague, confused, and strange. How long he lived, and when and where he died, are points on which no certain information can now be obtained. Josephus gives no account of his latter days, or of his death, though he says respecting him, "he was so happy as to have strange revelations made to him, and those as to one of the greatest of the prophets, insomuch that while he was alive he had the esteem and applause both of kings and of the multitude; and now he is dead, he retains a remembrance that will never fail." (Ant. b. x. chapter xi). It is commonly believed that he died in Chaldea, having been detained there by his employments in the Persian empire. Epiphanius says that he died in Babylon, and this has been the commonly received opinion of historians. This opinion, however, has not been universal. Some suppose that he died at Shushan or Susa. Josephus (Ant. b. x. chapter xi.) says that, "on account of the opinion which men had that he was beloved of God, he built a tower at Ecbatana in Media, which was a most elegant building and wonderfully made," and that it was still remaining in his day.

Benjamin of Tudela says that Iris monument was shown at Chuzestan, which is the ancient Susa. As Benjamin of Tudela professes to record what he saw and heard, and as his Itinerary is a book which has been more frequently transcribed and translated than almost any other book, except the Travels of Maundeville, it may be of some interest to copy what he has said of the tomb of Daniel. It is a record of the traditions of the East - the country where Daniel 54ed and died, and it is not improbably founded in essential truth. At any rate, it will show what has been the current tradition in the East respecting Daniel, and is all that can now be known respecting the place of his death and burial. Benjamin of Tudela was a Jewish rabbi of Spain, who traveled through Europe, Asia, and Africa, from Spain to China, between 1160 and 1173 a.d. His Itinerary was first printed in 1543, It was a work in wide circulation in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, and has been translated from the original Hebrew into Latin, English, French, Dutch, and Jewish German, and hi these languages has passed through not less than twenty-two editions.

I quote from the London and Berlin edition of 1840. "Four miles from hence begins Khuzestan, Elam of Scripture, a large province which, however, is but partially inhabited, a portion of it lying in ruins. Among the latter are the remains of Shushan, the metropolis and palace of king Achashverosh, which still contains very large and hand. some buildings of ancient date. Its seven thousand Jewish inhabitants possess fourteen synagogues, in front of one of which is the tomb of Daniel, who rests in peace. The river Ulai divides the parts of the city, which are connected with a bridge; that portion of it which is inhabited by the Jews contains the markets; to it all trade is confined, and there dwell all the rich; on the other side of the river they are poor, because they are deprived of the above-named advantages, and have even no gardens nor orchards. These circumstances gave rise to jealousy, which was fostered by the belief that all honor and riches originated from the possession of the remains of the prophet Daniel, who rests in peace, and who was buried on their side.

A request was made by the poor for permission to remove the sepulchre to the other side, but it was rejected; upon which a war arose, and was carried on between the two parties for a length of time. This strife lasted 'until their souls became loath' Numbers 21:4-5; Judges 16:16, and they came to a mutual agreement, by which it was stipulated that the coffin which contained Daniel's bones should be deposited alternately every year on either side. Both parties faithfully adhered to this arrangement, which was, however, interrupted by the interference of Sanjar Shah Ben Shah, who governs all Persia, and holds supreme power over forty-five of its kings.

"When this great emperor Sanjar, king of Persia, came to Shushan, and saw that the coffin of Daniel was removed from side to side, he crossed the bridge with a very numerous retinue, and accompanied by Jews and Mahometans, inquired into the nature of these proceedings. Upon being told what we have related above, he declared that it was derogatory to the honor of Daniel, and recommended that the distance between the two banks should be exactly measured; that Daniel's coffin should be deposited in another coffin, made of glass, and that it should be suspended from the very middle of the bridge, fastened by chains of iron. A place of public worship was erected on the very spot, open to every one who desired to say his prayers, whether he be Jew or Gentile, and the coffin of Daniel is suspended from the bridge unto this very day." - (Vol. i. pp. 117-120).

This story, trifling as it is in some of its details, may be admitted as evidence of a tradition in the East that Daniel died and was buried at Shushan. This tradition, moreover, is very ancient. In a note on this passage (vol. ii. p. 152), A. Asher, the publisher of the Itinerary of Benjamin, says: "Aasim of Cufah, a venerable historian, who preceded lbn Hankel by two hundred years (for he died 735), mentions the discovery of Daniel's coffin at Sus. Ibn Haukel, who traveled in the tenth century, speaks of it, and ascribes to the possession of the bones of Daniel the virtue of dispelling all sorts of distress, particularly that of famine from want of rain." It has been a matter of much controversy whether the place now known as Chouck, Chouz, or Sous is the ancient Shushan (lat. 31 55', long. 83 40'), or the place now called Shuster (lat. 31 30', long. 84 30'). The former opinion is maintained by Rennel, Ouseley, Barbie du Bocage, Kinneir, and Hoek; the latter by d'Herbelot, d'Anville, Vincent, Mannert, and Hammer. Major Rawlinson, who has furnished the most recent account of this place, maintains that "Shushan the palace" is the present Susan on the Kulan or Eulaeus, the Ulai of Scripture. (See vol. ix. of the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society).

Section II. Genuineness and Authenticity of the Book of Daniel

Consideration of Objections.

Until a comparatively recent period, with some slight exceptions, the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel have been regarded as settled, and its canonical authority was as little doubted as that of any other portion of the Bible. The ancient Hebrews never called its genuineness or authenticity in question (Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, Knigsberg, 1835, p. 6; Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des Daniel, Berlin, 1831, p. 1). It is true that in the Talmud (Tract. Baba Bathra, Fol. 15, Ed. Venet.) it is said that "the men of the Great Synagogue wrote - כתוב the קדנג K. D. N. G. - that is, portions (eleven chapters) of the book of Ezekiel, the prophet Daniel, and the book of Esther;" but this, as Lengerke has remarked (p. v.), does not mean that they had introduced this book into the canon, as Bertholdt supposes, but that, partly by tradition, and partly by inspiration, they revised it anew. But whatever may be the truth in regard to this, it does not prove that the ancient Jews did not consider it canonical. It is true that much has been said about the fact that the Jews did not class this book among the prophets, but placed it in the Hagiographa or Kethubim, כתוּבים kethûbı̂ym. It has been inferred from this, that they believed that it was composed a considerable time after the other prophetic books, and that they did not deem it worthy of a place among their prophetic books in general. But, even if this were so, it would not prove that they did not regard it as a genuine production of Daniel; and the fact that it was not placed among the prophetic books may be accounted for without the supposition that they did not regard it as genuine. The usual statement on that subject is, that they placed the book there because they say that Daniel 54ed the life of a courtier in Babylon, rather than the life of a prophet; and the Jews further assert that, though he received Divine communications, they were only by dreams and visions of the night, which they regard as the most imperfect kind of revelations. - (Horne, Intro. 4:188). The place which Daniel should occupy in the Sacred Writings probably became a matter of discussion among the Hebrews only after the coming of the Saviour, when Christians urged so zealously his plain prophecies (Daniel 9:24-27) in proof of the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus.

The first open and avowed adversary to the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel was Porphyry, a learned adversary of the Christian faith in the third century. He wrote fifteen books against Christianity, all of which are lost, except some fragments preserved by Eusebius, Jerome, and others. His objections against Daniel were made in his twelfth book, and all that we have of these objections has been preserved by Jerome in his commentary on the book of Daniel. A full account of Porphyry, and of his objections against the Christians and the sacred books of the Old and New Testament, so far as can now be known, may be seen in Lardner, Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. vii. pp. 390-470, of his works, Ed. London, 1899. In regard to the book of Daniel, he maintained, according to Jerome (Pr. and Explan. in Daniel), "that the book was not written by him whose name it bears, but by another who lived in Judea in the time of Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes; and that the book of Daniel does not foretell things to come, but relates what had already happened. In a word, whatever it contains to the time of Antiochus is true history; if there is anything relating to after-times it is falsehood; forasmuch as the writer could not see things future, but at the most only could make some conjectures about them. To him several of our authors have given answers of great labour and diligence - in particular. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, in three volumes, the 18th, the 19th, and the 20th; Apollinarius, also, in one large book, that is, the 26th; and before them, in part, Methodius. 'As it is not my design,' says Jerome, 'to confute the objections of the adversary, which would require a long discourse; but only to explain the prophet to our own people, that is, to Christians, I shall just observe that none of the prophets have spoken so clearly of Christ as Daniel, for he not only foretells his coming, as do others likewise, but he also teaches the time when he will come, and mentions in order the princes of the intermediate space, and the number of the years, and the signs of his appearance. And because Porphyry saw all these things to have been fulfilled, and could not deny that they had actually come to pass, he was compelled to say as he did; and because of some similitude of circumstances, he asserted that the things foretold as to be fulfilled in Antichrist at the end of the world happened in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes: - which kind of opposition is a testimony of truth; for such is the plain interpretation of the words, that to incredulous men the prophet seems not to foretell things to come, but to relate things already past; and though, as before said, it is not my intention to confute all his objections, I shall, as occasion offers, take notice of some of his weak arguments. And it may be proper for us, among other things, to observe now, that Porphyry argued that the book of Daniel was not genuine, because it was written in Greek, and, therefore, was not the work of any Jew, but the forgery of some Greek writer. This he argued from some Greek words which are in the fable of Susanna, to which both Eusebius and Apollinarius returned the same answer, that the fabulous stories of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, are not in the Hebrew, but are said to have been composed by a person of the tribe of Levi; whereas the sacred Scriptures assure us that Daniel and the three children, his companions, were of the tribe of Judah. And they said they were not accountable for what was not received by the Jews, nor was a part of the sacred Scriptures.'" A few of the objections which Porphyry makes to the credibility of certain parts of Daniel, Jerome has quoted in his commentary on the particular passages referred to. These have been collected by Dr. Lardner, and may Be seen in his works, vol. vii. pp. 402-415. It is not necessary to transcribe them here, as they will come up for consideration in the notes on the particular chapters.

Dr. Lardner (vol. vii. p. 401) remarks respecting Porphyry, "that Porphyry's work against the Christians was much laboured, and that in this argument he displayed all his learning, which was very considerable. Hence we can perceive the difficulty of undertaking an answer to him, for which very few were fully qualified; in which none of the apologists for Christianity seem to have answered expectations." We cannot now form a correct opinion of the argument of Porphyry, for we have only the few fragments of his work which Jerome and others have seen proper to preserve. We are in danger, therefore, of doing injustice to what may have been the real force of his argument, for it may have been stronger than would be indicated by those fragments that remain. It is impossible to recover his main objections; and all that can now be said is, that, as far as is known, he did not make any converts to his opinions. and that his objections produced no change in the faith of the Christian world.

No further attack on the genuineness and authenticity of Daniel seems to have been made, and no further doubt entertained, until the time of Spinoza. Spinoza was by birth a Jew; was born at Amsterdam in 1632; became professedly converted to Christianity in consequence of supposing that his life was in danger among the Jews, But was probably indifferent to all religions. He gave himself up to philosophical inquiries, and is commonly understood to have been a pantheist. He maintained (Tractat. Theol. Politicus, c. 10, t. i. p. 308, Ed. Paulus), that the last five chapters of Daniel were written by Daniel himself, But that the seven previous chapters were collected about the time of the Maccabees from the chronological writings of the Chaldeans, and that the whole was arranged by some unknown hand. Edward Wells, who lived in the first part of the eighteenth century, maintained that the work was composed by some one soon after the death of Daniel. Antony Collins, one of the British Deists, maintained also that it was not written by Daniel. In more recent times, the genuineness of the book has been doubted or denied, in whole or in part, by Corrodi, Gesenius, Lderwald, Dereser, Scholl, Lengerke, Eichhorn, De Wette, Griesenger, Bertholdt, Bleek, Ewald, Hitzig, and Kirms; it has been defended by the English writers generally, and among the Germans by Staudlin, Beekhaus, Jahn, Hvernick Hengstenberg, and others. The general ground taken by those who have denied its genuineness and authenticity is, that the book was written, at or about the time of the Maccabees, By some Jew, who, in order to give greater authority and importance to his work, wrote under the assumed name of Daniel, and laid the scene in Babylon in the time of the captivity.

The various arguments urged against the genuineness of the book may be seen in Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Lengerke, Kirms (Commentatio Historico Critica, Jenae, 1825), and De Wette. The best defence of its authenticity, probably, is the work of Hengstenberg (Die Authentie des Daniel, Berlin, 1831). The examination of the objections alleged against the particular chapters, and particular portions of chapters, it will be most convenient to examine in the introductions to the respective chapters. I propose, in this general Introduction, merely to examine the objections of a general character which have been made to the work. These have been concisely arranged and stated by De Wette (Lehrbuch der Historisch-kritischen, Einleitung, Berlin, 1845, pp. 382-389), and in the examination of the objections I shall consider them in the order in which he has stated them.

The view which De Wette entertains of the book is stated in the following manner: - "That in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when the spirit of prophecy among the Jews had been a long time extinct, a Jewish friend of his country endeavoured to encourage and strengthen his contemporary sufferers, and those who were contending for their liberty, through these apocalyptic prophecies respecting the future ascendancy of the theocratic principle, which, in order to give the work greater reputation and authority, he ascribed to an ancient Seer of the name of Daniel, of whom probably something had been handed down by tradition. Designedly he suffered the promises to extend to a great length of time, in order to make them appear the more certain. After the manner of the ancient prophets also, he inwove much that was historical, and especially such as would be fitted to excite and arouse the martyr spirit of his own people." - (Lehrbuch, p. 390).

I. The first objection which is urged against the genuineness of the book is derived from what is denominated the fabulous contents - Mhrchenhaften Inhalte - of its narrative parts. This objection, in the words of De Wette, is, that "the book is full of improbabilities (Daniel 2:3, Daniel 2:46; Daniel 3:1, Daniel 3:5, Daniel 3:20, Daniel 3:22, Daniel 3:28, 31; Daniel 4:31; Daniel 5:11, Daniel 5:18, Daniel 5:29, Daniel 6:8, Daniel 6:26); of wonders (Daniel 2:28, Daniel 3:23; Daniel 5:5, Daniel 6:23, Daniel 6:25); its historical inaccuracies are such as are found in no prophetic book of the Old Testament, and are founded on the same type (comp. Daniel 2:2-11, with Daniel 4:4; Daniel 5:8; Daniel 3:4-12, Daniel 3:26-30, with Daniel 6:8-18, Daniel 6:21-24).. This seeking after wonders and strange things, and the religious fanaticism nourished through these persecutions, which it breathes, place the book in the same condition as the second book of the Maccabees, as a production of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the similarity of the former of the two books betrays the fictitious character. (Dichtung) of the book." - (Lehrbuch, pp. 382, 383).

In reference to this objection, which turns on the marvellous character of the book, and the improbable historical statements in it, the following remarks may be made: -

(a) These objections are noticed in detail in the introductions to the respective chapters where the historical events here objected to are stated, and the question whether they are fabulous, or are in accordance with true history, is there fully considered. This will make it needless to notice them here particularly. In the introduction to the respective chapters, I have noticed, and have endeavoured to answer, all the objections which I have found of this character in the works of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Bleek, and Lengerke. This will make it the less necessary to dwell on this point in this general Introduction.

(b) But as to the alleged contradiction between Daniel and the historical accounts which we have of the affairs to which he refers, it may be proper to observe in general - (1.) That, for anything that appears, Daniel may be as accurate an historian as any of the heathen writers of those times. There is, in the nature of the case, no reason why we should put implicit confidence in Berosus, Abydenus, Xenophon, and Herodotus, and distrust Daniel; nor why, if a statement is omitted by them, we should conclude at once that, if mentioned by Daniel, it is false. It is an unhappy circumstance, that there are many persons who suppose that the fact that a thing is mentioned by a profane historian is presumptive evidence of its truth; if mentioned by a sacred writer, it is presumptive evidence of its falsehood. Under the influence of the same feeling, it is inferred, that if an event is mentioned by a sacred writer which is omitted by a profane historian, it is regarded as demonstrative that the work in which it is found is fabulous. It is unnecessary to show that this feeling exists in many minds; and yet nothing can be more unjust - for the mere fact that an author writes on sacred subjects, or is the professed friend of a certain religion, should not be allowed to cast a suspicion on his testimony. That testimony must depend, in regard to its value, on his credibility as a historian, and not on the subject on which he writes. In the nature of things, there is no more reason why a writer on sacred subjects should be unworthy of belief, than one who is recording the ordinary events of history. (2.) Daniel, according to the account which we have of him, had opportunities of ascertaining the truth of the facts which he narrates, which no profane historian had. He spent the greater part of a long life in Babylon, in the very midst of the scenes which he describes; he was intimately acquainted with the affairs of the government; he enjoyed, in a remarkable degree, the confidence of those in authority, and he was himself deeply concerned in most of these transactions, and could have adopted the language of Aeneas - et quorum magna pars fui. (3.) It is to be remembered, also, in regard to these events and times, that we have few fragments of history remaining. We have fragments of the writings of Berosus, a Chaldean, indeed, who wrote in Greece; and of Abydenus, a Greek, who wrote in Chaldea; we have some historical statements in Xenophon, and a few in Herodotus: but the Chaldean history, if ever written, is lost; the public documents are destroyed; the means of an accurate and full knowledge of the Chaldean or Babylonish power in the time when Daniel 54ed, have disappeared for ever. Under these circumstances, it would not be strange if we should not be able to clear up all the difficulties of a historical nature that may be suggested respecting these fragmentary accounts, or be able to verify the statements which we find in the sacred books by the explicit testimony of contemporary writers.

(c) As a matter of fact, the investigations of history, as far as they can be made, go to confirm the authority of Daniel. Instances of this will occur in the examination of the particular chapters in this book, and all that can now be done is merely to refer to them, particularly to the introductions to ch. 1, 4-6. In general, it may be said here, that none of the historical authorities contradict what is stated by Daniel, and that the few fragments which we have go to confirm what he has said, or at least to make it probable.

(d) As to the objections of De Wette and others, derived from the miraculous and marvellous character of the book, it may be observed further, that the same objection would lie against most of the books of the Bible, and that it is, therefore, not necessary to notice it particularly in considering the book of Daniel. The Bible is a book full of miracles and marvels; and he who would have any proper understanding of it must regard and treat it as such. It is impossible to understand or explain it without admitting the possibility and the reality of miraculous events; and in a book which claims to be founded miracles, it does not prove that it is not authentic or genuine simply to say that it assumes that miracles are possible. To destroy the credibility of the book, it is necessary to show that all claims of a miraculous character are unfounded, and all miracles impossible and absurd; and this objection would not lie against the book of Daniel peculiarly, but equally against the whole Bible. Two remarks here may be made, however, of a more particular character: (1), that the statements in Daniel are not more marvellous than those which occur in other parts of the Bible, and if they may be believed, those occurring in Daniel may be also; and (2), that it would rather be an argument against the genuineness and authenticity of the book if no miraculous and marvellous statements were found in it. It would be so unlike the other books of the Bible, where miracles abound, that we should feel that there was wanting in its favour the evidence of this nature, which would show that it had the same origin as the other portions of the volume. The particular objections in regard to the statements in Daniel of this nature are considered in the notes on the book.

II. A second objection to the genuineness of the book of Daniel relates to the prophecies which are found in it. This objection is derived from the peculiar character of these prophecies; from the minuteness of the detail; the exact. designation of the order of events; the fact that they seem to be a summary of history written after the events occurred; and that in these respects they are essentially unlike the other prophecies in the Bible. This objection, we have seen, is as old as Porphyry; and this was in fact, with him the principal argument against the authenticity of the book. This objection is summed up and stated by De Wette in the following manner (Section 255b, pp. 385, 385): "The ungenuineness (Unchtheit) appears further from the prophetic contents of the same, which is to a remarkable extent different from that of all the remaining prophetic books, (a) through its apocalyptic character, or through this - that the coming of the kingdom of the Messiah is mentioned and determined according to certain definite periods of time, or specified periods, and that the representation of it occurs so much in the form of visions; (b) that the circumstances of the distant future, and the fortune of the kingdoms which were not yet in existence, even down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, are described with so much particularity and accuracy (Daniel 8:14, Daniel 9:25; Daniel 12:11) that the account must have been written after the event; (c) and that, if Daniel was a prophet, he must have lived in the times of Ezekiel and Zechariah, and we must suppose that his prophecies would have borne the general character of the prophecies of those times, but that in fact we find in them the spirit of a later age - the spirit that ultimately developed itself in the Sibylline books, to which these prophecies bear a strong resemblance."

In reply to this it may be remarked: -

(1.) That all that is said in Daniel is possible: that is, it is possible that prophetic intimations of the future should be given with as much particularity as are found in Daniel. No one can demonstrate, or even affirm, that God could not, if he chose, inspire a prophet to predict in detail the occurrences of the most remote times, and the fall of kingdoms not yet in being. All this knowledge must be with him: and for anything that appears, it would be as easy to inspire a prophet to predict these events as any other. The solo inquiry, therefore, is in regard to a fact; and this is to be settled by an examination of the evidence, that the prophet lived and prophesied before the events predicted occurred.

(2.) The prophecies in Daniel are not, in their structure and character, so unlike those whose genuineness is undisputed as to make it certain, or even probable, that the latter are genuine and those of Daniel not. Dreams and visions were common methods of communicating the Divine will to the prophets - see Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7, (2), (4) - and who will undertake from any infernal evidence to determine between those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel?

(3.) As to the allegation respecting the details in Daniel of future events - the particularity with which he describes them - all is to be admitted that is affirmed on the subject. It is a fact that there is such particularity and minuteness of detail as could be founded only on truth, and that the delineations of Alexander and his conquests, and the statements of the events that would succeed his reign down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (ch. 11), are drawn with as much accuracy of detail as they would be by one writing after the events had occurred. No one can doubt this who attentively examines these remarkable prophecies. Porphyry was undoubtedly right in affirming, that in regard to their minuteness and accuracy, these prophecies appeared to be written after the events; and if it can be shown, therefore, that they were written before the events referred to, the testimony of Porphyry is a strong evidence of the fact that Daniel was inspired; for no one will maintain that man, by any natural sagacity, could describe events before they occur with the exactness of detail and the minute accuracy which is found in this part of Daniel.

But is not what is here said of Daniel as to the accuracy and minuteness of detail true also, in the main, of other prophecies in the Old Testament? Are there not many prophecies that are as accurate, and in some respects as minute, as they would have been if they were written after the events referred to? Is not this true of the predictions respecting the destruction of Tyre and of Babylon, and carrying away of the Jews into captivity? Is not Cyrus expressly mentioned by Isaiah, and is not the work which he would perform in the conquest of Babylon drawn out in exact detail? (See Isaiah 45:1, seq.) So in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 50:1, Jeremiah 51:1), there is a prophetic account of the destruction of Babylon, as minute in many respects as the predictions of Daniel, and as exact and minute as it would have been if written after the events had occurred, and the author had been making a historical record instead of uttering a prediction. But on this point I must content myself with referring to the argument of Hengstenberg, Authentie des Daniel, pp. 173-195. It may be added, however, that it is on this accuracy of detail in Daniel that we ground one of the strong arguments for his inspiration. It will be admitted on all hands - it cannot be denied - that no one could foresee those events, and describe them with such accuracy of detail, by any natural sagacity; but no one who believes in the fact of inspiration at all, can doubt that it would be as easy for the Divine Spirit to present future events in this accuracy of detail as in a more general manner. At all events, this accuracy and minuteness of detail removes the prophecies from the region of conjecture, and is an answer to the usual objections that they are obscure and ambiguous. No one can pretend this of the writings of Daniel; and if it can be shown that the book was written before the events occurred, the conclusion cannot be avoided that the author was inspired.

III. A third objection to the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel is thus stated by De Wette (Section 255, b. 3, p. 385): "Grounds of objection lie further in the repeated mention of himself in so honourable a manner (Daniel 1:17, Daniel 1:19; Daniel 5:11; Daniel 6:4; Daniel 9:23; Daniel 10:11, et al.)"

This objection cannot be regarded as having any great degree of force, or as contributing much to set aside the direct evidence of the authority of the book: - for (a) it is possible that all these honours were conferred on him. This is, in itself, no more incredible or remarkable than that Joseph should have reached the honours in Egypt, which are attributed to him in Genesis; and no one can show that if the account had been written by another, it would have been unworthy of belief. (b) If it were a fact that he was thus honoured, it was not improper to state it. If Daniel was the historian of those times, and kept the records of the events of his own life, and actually obtained those honours, there was no impropriety in his making a record of those things. He has done no more than what Caesar did in the mention of himself, his plans, his conquests, his triumphs. In the record of Daniel there is no unseemly parading of his wisdom, or the honours conferred on him; there is no praise for the mere sake of praise; there is no language of panegyric on account of his eminent piety. The account is a mere record of facts as they are said to have occurred - that Daniel was successful in his early studies, and his preparation for the examination through which he and his companions were to pass (ch. 1); that on more than one occasion he succeeded in interpreting a dream or vision which no one of the Chaldeans could do; that in consequence of this he was raised to an exalted rank; that he was enabled to maintain his integrity in the midst of extraordinary temptations; and that he was favoured with the Divine protection when in extraordinary danger. I presume that no one who has read the book of Daniel with an unprejudiced mind ever received an impression that there was any want of modesty in Daniel in these records, or that there was any unseemly or unnecessary parading of his own virtues and honours before the world.

IV. A fourth objection which has been urged against the genuineness of Daniel is derived from the language in which it is written. This objection, as stated by De Wette (Section 935, b. 4, p. 385), is founded on "the corrupt Hebrew and Chaldee, and the intermingling of Greek words in the composition." The objection is urged more at length in Bertholdt (p. 24, seq.), and by Bleek, Kirms, and others. The objection, as derived from the language of the book, is properly divided into three parts: - (a) that it is written in Hebrew and Chaldee; (b) that in each part of it there is a want of purity of style, indicating a later age than the time of the captivity; and (c) that there is an intermingling of Greek words, such as it cannot be presumed that one who wrote in the time of the exile, and in Babylon, would have employed, and such as were probably introduced into common use only by a later intercourse with the Greeks, and particularly by the Macedonian conquest.

(a) As to the first of these, little stress can be laid on it, and indeed it is rather an argument for the genuineness of the work than against it. It is well known that from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh chapter, the work is written in the Chaldee language, while the remainder is pure Hebrew. The only way in which this fact could be regarded as an objection to the genuineness of the book, would be that it is an indication that it is the production of two different authors. But this would be an objection only on the supposition that the author could write and speak only one language, or that, supposing he was acquainted with two, there were no circumstances which could account for the use of both. But neither of these suppositions applies here. There is every reason to believe that Daniel was acquainted with both the Hebrew and the Chaldee; and there is no improbability in the supposition that he wrote in both with equal ease. And, on the other hand, it may be remarked, that the very circumstance here referred to is a confirmation of the genuineness of the book; for (1.) it accords with all that is known of Daniel. He was a youth when he left his native country, and there is every probability that he familiar with the Hebrew in early life, and that he would never forget it, though it might be true that he would ordinarily use the language of Chaldea. He was still familiar with the Hebrew books, and it is to be presumed that the language used by the Hebrews in exile was their native tongue. In all his intercourse with his own countrymen, therefore, it is every way probable that he would use his native language, and would thus through life retain his knowledge of it. (2.) It is equally clear that he was familiar with the Chaldee language. He was early, in connection with three other Hebrew youths (Daniel 1:3, Daniel 1:4), placed under the best instruction in Babylon, for the express purpose of acquiring, with other branches of learning, a knowledge of the "tongue of the Chaldeans;" and he speedily made such acquisitions as to pass with honour the examination appointed before he was admitted to public employment (Daniel 1:18-20). He was, moreover, employed at court during a considerable part of his long life, and no one, therefore, can doubt that he was entirely familiar with the language used in Babylon, and that he could compose in it with ease. (3.) It is evident that the work must, if it is the production of one author, have been composed by some person who was, in this respect, in the circumstances of Daniel; that is, by one who was familiar with both the languages: and the circumstances bear on their face evidence that the work was written by one in the condition in which Daniel was known to be; that is, one who had been early trained in the Hebrew and who had lived in Chaldea. No native-born Hebrew who had not lived in Chaldea would be likely to be so well acquainted with the two languages that he could use either with equal facility; and it may be presumed that no native-born Chaldean could evince so intimate an acquaintance with the Hebrew. The direct evidence that it is the production of one author will be adduced in another part of this Introduction. (4.) It is by no means probable that one who lived so late as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes could have written the book as it is written; that is, that he would have been so familiar with the two languages, Hebrew and Chaldee, that he could use them with equal ease. It is an uncommon thing for a man to write in two different languages in the same work, and he never does it without some special design - a design for which there would not be likely to be occasion if one were writing in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It was perfectly natural that Daniel should write in this manner, and perfectly unnatural that any one should do it in a later age, and in different circumstances. If the book had been forged by a Hebrew in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, there is every reason to believe that he would have been careful to write it in as pure Hebrew as possible, for that was the language in which the canonical books were written, and if he had endeavoured to gain credit for the book as one of Divine authority, he would not have intermingled so much of a foreign language. If he were a Chaldean, and could write Hebrew at all, as it is certain that the author of this book could, then, for the reason just given, he would have been careful to write the whole book in as pure Hebrew as possible, and would not have jeoparded credit by so large an infusion of a foreign tongue. (5.) This reasoning is conclusive, unless it be supposed that the author meant to represent it as a composition of some Hebrew in the time of the exile, and that in order to give it the greater verisimilitude he adopted this device - to make it appear as if written by one who was a native Hebrew, but who had become familiar with a foreign language. But this device would be too refined to be likely to occur, and, for the reasons given above, would be difficult of execution if it should occur. Even in such a case, the writer would be much more likely to represent its author as writing in the sacred language of the prophets, in order to procure for himself the credit of employing the language used in all the Divine communications to men. The language in which the book is written, therefore, is just such as it would be on the supposition that it is genuine, and just such as it would not be on the supposition that it is a forgery of a later age.

(b) As to the statement that the language is corrupt Hebrew and Chaldee - in der Verderbten sowohl Hebrischen als Chaldishen Sprache (De Wette) - it may be remarked that this position has never been satisfactorily made out, nor has it been shown that it is not such as might be employed, or would be employed, by one who resided in Babylon in the time of the exile. That the language would not be the purest kind of Hebrew, or the purest Chaldee, might be possible, in the circumstances of the case; but it could be shown that it was not such as might be employed there, in case there are words and forms of speech which did not come into use until a later period of the world. This has not been shown. It is true that there are Persian words; But this is not unnatural in the circumstances of the case - bordering as Chaldea did on Persia, and during a part of the time referred to in the book, being actually subject to Persia. It is true that there are Greek words; but under the next specification I shall endeavor to show that this does not militate against the supposition that the book may have been written in Babylon in the time of the exile. It is true that there are words and forms of speech which were not in use in the earlier periods of Hebrew literature, but which became common in the later periods of their literature; but this does not prove that they may not have been in use as early as the exile. A specimen of the words referred to - indeed all on which the argument is founded - may be seen in De Wette, p. 385, note (e). They are few in number, and in respect to none of these can it be proved that they were not in existence in the time Daniel. They are of Persian, of Syriac, or of Chaldee origin, and are such words as would be likely to come into use in the circumstances of the case. In regard to this objection it may be added, that it has been abandoned by some of the objectors to the genuineness of the book of Daniel themselves. Bleek is candid enough to give it up entirely. He says: "We have, in general, too few remains of the different centuries after the exile to draw any conclusions as to the gradual depreciation of the language, and to determine with any certainty to what particular period any writer belongs." - (Zeitschr. p. 213). "Daniel," says Prof. Stuart, "in the judgment of Gesenius (Geschich. Heb. Sprach. p. 35), has decidedly a purer diction than Ezekiel; in which opinion," says he, "as far as I am able to judge, after much time spent upon the book, and examining minutely every word and. phrase in it many times over, I should entirely coincide." - (Com. p. 465).

(c) A more material objection is derived from the use of Greek words in the composition of the book. That there are such words is undeniable, though they are by no means numerous. Bertholdt (pp. 24, 25) has enumerated ten such words; De Wette has referred to four (p. 386). The words enumerated by Bertholdt are פרתמים - προτιμοι; פתגם - φθεγμα; כרוזא - κηρυξ; כרז - κηρυσσειν; קיתרס - κιθαρις; סבכא - σαμβυκη; סומפניא - συμφωνια; פסנטר - ψαλτηριον; פטיש - πετασος; נכזכה - νομισμα.

In regard to this objection, it may be remarked, in general, that it does not assert that the structure of the book of Daniel is fashioned after the Greek manner, or that the Greek style pervades it; it asserts only that a few Greek words have been incorporated into the book. The question then is, whether even all these words are of Greek origin; and whether, if they are, or if only a part of them are, their use in the book can be accounted for on the supposition that it was written in the time of the captivity, or rather, whether their occurrence in the book is a proof that the book could not have been written at that time.

The first point is the question, whether these words are of undoubted Greek origin; and this question will require us to examine them in detail.

(1.) The first word specified is פרתמים parethemı̂ym, rendered princes (Daniel 1:3), which it is alleged is the same as the Greek προτιμοι protimoi. The word used by Daniel occurs only in two other places in the Old Testament (Esther 1:3, Esther 6:9), where it is rendered nobles, and most noble; and it is obvious to remark, that the fact that, it is found in Esther might be urged in proof that the book of Daniel was written at the time in which it is commonly believed to have been, since the antiquity and genuineness of the book of Esther is not called in question. But apart from this, there is no evidence that the word is of Greek origin. Gesenius, who may be considered as impartial authority on the subject, says, "it is of Persian origin, 1-9. Pehlvi, pardom, the first, see Anquetil du perron Zendavesta, ii. p. 465. Comp. Sanser. prathama the first. In the Zend dialect the form is peoerim. Comp. Sanser. pura prius, antea, purna, antiquus. From the former comes the Greek prw

Section I.-- Authenticity of the Chapter

For the general argument in favor of the genuineness and authenticity of the Book of Daniel, see the Introduction, Sections II and III. To the genuineness and authenticity of each particular chapter in detail, however, objections, derived from something peculiar in each chapter, have been urged, which it is proper to meet, and which I propose to consider in a particular introduction to the respective chapters. These objections it is proper to consider, not so much because they have been urged by distinguished German critic - De Wette, Bertholdt, Bleek, Eichhorn, and others - for their writings will probably fall into the hands of few persons who will read these Notes - but

(a) because it may be presumed that men of so much learning, industry, acuteness, and ingenuity, have urged all the objections which can, with any appearance of plausibility, be alleged against the book; and

(b) because the objections which they have urged may be presumed to be felt, to a greater or less degree, by those who read the book, though they might not be able to express them with so much clearness and force. There are numerous objections to various portions of the Scriptures floating in the minds of the readers of the Bible, and many difficulties which occur to such readers which are not expressed, and which it would be desirable to remove, and which it is the duty of an expositor of the Bible, if he can, to remove. Sceptical critics, in general, but collect and embody in a plausible form difficulties which are felt by most readers of the Scriptures. It is for this reason, and with a view to remove what "seems" to furnish plausible arguments against the different portions of this book, that the objections which have been urged, principally by the authors above referred to, will be noticed in special sections preceding the exposition of each chapter.

The only objection to the genuineness and authenticity of the first chapter which it seems necessary to notice is, that the account of Daniel in the chapter is inconsistent with the mention of Daniel by Ezekiel. The objection substantially is, that it is improbable that the Daniel who is mentioned by Ezekiel should be one who was a cotemporary with himself, and who at that time lived in Babylon. Daniel is three times mentioned in Ezekiel, and in each case as a man of eminent piety and integrity; as one so distinguished by his virtues as to deserve to be classed with the most eminent of the patriarchs. Thus in Ezekiel 14:14, "Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God." So again, Ezekiel 14:20, "Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord God, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter, they shall deliver but their own souls by their righteousness."

And again, Ezekiel 28:3, speaking of the prince of Tyre, "Behold thou art wiser than Daniel." The objection urged in respect to the mention of Daniel in these passages is substantially this - that if the account in the book of Daniel is true, he must have been a cotemporary with Ezekiel, and must have been, when Ezekiel prophesied, a young man; that it is incredible that he should have gained a degree of reputation which would entitle him to be ranked with Noah and Job; that he could not have been so well known as to make it natural or proper to refer to him in the same connection with those eminent men; and "especially" that he could not have been thus known to the prince of Tyre, as is supposed of those mentioned by Ezekiel in the passages referred to, for it cannot be presumed that a man so young had acquired such a fame abroad as to make it proper to refer to him in this manner in an address to a pagan prince. This objection was urged by Bernstein (uber das Buch Hiob, in den Analekten von Keil und Tzschirner, i. 3, p. 10), and it is found also in Bleek, p. 284, and De Wette, "Einl." p. 380. De Wette says that it is probable that the author of the book of Daniel used the name of "an ancient mythic or poetic person falsely," in order to illustrate his work.

Now, in regard to this objection, it may be remarked

(a) that, according to all the accounts which we have in the Bible, Ezekiel and Daniel "were" cotemporary, and were in Babylon at the same time. As Daniel, however, lived a long time in Babylon after this, it is to be admitted, also, that at the period referred to by Ezekiel, he must have been comparatively a young man. But it does not follow that he might not then have had a well-known character for piety and integrity, which would make it proper to mention his name in connection with the most eminent saints of ancient times. If the account in the book of Daniel "itself" is a correct account of him, this will not be doubted, for he soon attracted attention in Babylon; he soon evinced that extraordinary piety which made him so eminent as a man of God, and that extraordinary wisdom which raised him to the highest rank as an officer of state in Babylon. It was very soon after he was taken to Babylon that the purpose was formed to tram him, and the three other selected youths, in the learning of the Chaldeans Daniel 1:1-4, and that Daniel showed that he was qualified to pass the examination, preparatory to his occupying an honorable place in the court Daniel 1:18-21; and it was only in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar that the remarkable dream occurred, the interpretation of which gave to Daniel so much celebrity Daniel 2.

According to computation of Hengstenberg ("Authentie des Daniel," p. 71), Daniel was taken to Babylon full ten years before the prophecy of Ezekiel in which the first mention of him was made; and if so, there can be no real ground for the objection referred to. In that time, if the account of his extraordinary wisdom is true; if he evinced the character which it is said that he did evince - and against this there is no intrinsic improbability; and if he was exalted to office and rank, as it is stated that he was, there can be no improbability in what Ezekiel says of him, that he had a character which made it proper that he should be classed with the most eminent men of the Jewish nation.

(b) As to the objection that the name of Daniel could not have been known to the king of Tyre, as would seem to be implied in Ezekiel 28:3, it may be remarked, that it is not necessary to suppose that these prophecies were ever known to the king of Tyre, or that they were ever designed to influence him. The prophecies which were directed against the ancient pagan kings were uttered and published among the Hebrew people, primarily for "their" guidance, and were designed to furnish to them, and to others in future times, arguments for the truth of religion, though they assumed the form of direct addresses to the kings themselves. Such an imaginary appeal may have been made in this case by Ezekiel to the king of Tyre; and, in speaking of him, and of his boasted wisdom, Ezekiel may have made the comparison which would then naturally occur to him, by mentioning him in connection with the most eminent man for wisdom of that age.

But it should be said, also, that there can be no certain evidence that the name of Daniel was "not" known to the king of Tyre, and no intrinsic improbability in the supposition that it was. If Daniel had at that time evinced the remarkable wisdom at the court of Babylon which it is said in this book that he had; if he had been raised to that high rank which it is affirmed he had reached, there is no improbability in supposing that so remarkable a circumstance should have been made known to the king of Tyre. Tyre was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, 572 b.c., after a siege of thirteen years, and it is in no way improbable that the king of Tyre would be made acquainted with what occurred at the court of the Chaldeans. The prophecy in Ezekiel, where Daniel is mentioned Ezekiel 28:3, could not have been uttered long before Tyre was taken, and, in referring to what was to occur, it was not unnatural to mention the man most distinguished for wisdom at the court of Babylon, and in the councils of Nebuchadnezzar, with the presumption that his name and celebrity would not be unknown to the king of Tyre.

(c) As to the objection of Bernstein, that it would be improbable, if Daniel 54ed there, and if he was comparatively a young man, that his name would be placed "between" that of Noah and Job EZechariah 14:14, as if he had lived "before" Job, it may be remarked, that there might be a greater similarity between the circumstances of Noah and Daniel than between Noah and Job, and that it was proper to refer to them in this order. But the mere circumstance of the "order" in which the names are mentioned cannot be adduced as a proof that one of the persons named did not exist at that time. They may have occurred in this order to Ezekiel, because in his apprehension, that was the order in Which the degree of their piety was to be estimated.

To this objection thus considered, that the mention of Daniel in connection with Noah and Job, proves that Ezekiel referred to some one of ancient times, it may be further replied, that, if this were so, it is impossible to account for the fact that no such person is mentioned by any of the earlier prophets and writers. How came his name to be known to Ezekiel? And if there had been a patriarch so eminent as to be ranked with Noah and Job, how is it to be accounted for that all the sacred writers, up to the time of Ezekiel, are wholly silent in regard to him? And why is it that, when "he" mentions him, he does it as of one who was well known? The mere mention of his name in this manner by Ezekiel, proves that his character was well known to those for whom he wrote. Noah and Job were thus known by the ancient records; but how was "Daniel" thus known? He is nowhere mentioned in the ancient writings of the Hebrews; and if he was so well known that he could be referred to in the same way as Noah and Job, it must be either because there was some "tradition" in regard to him, or because he was then living, and his character was well understood by those for whom Ezekiel wrote. But there is no evidence that there was any such tradition, and no probability that there was; and the conclusion, then, is inevitable, that he was then so well known to the Hebrews in exile, that it was proper for Ezekiel to mention him just as he did Noah and Job. If so, this furnishes the highest evidence that he actually lived in the time of Ezekiel; that is, in the time when this book purports to have been written.

Section II.-- Analysis of the Chapter

This chapter is entirely historical, the prophetic portions of the book commencing with the second chapter. The "object" of this chapter seems to be to state the way in which Daniel, who subsequently acted so important a part in Babylon, was raised to so distinguished favor with the king and court. It was remarkable that a Jewish captive, and a young man, should be so honored; that he should be admitted as one of the principal counselors of the king, and that he should ultimately become the prime-minister of the realm; and there was a propriety that there should be a preliminary statement of the steps of this extraordinary promotion. This chapter contains a record of the way in which the future premier and prophet was introduced to the notice of the reigning monarch, and by which his wonderful genius and sagacity were discovered. It is a chapter, therefore, that may be full of interest and instruction to all, and especially to young men. The chapter contains the record of the following points, or steps, which led to the promotion of Daniel:

I. The history of the Jewish captivity, as explanatory of the reason why those who are subsequently referred to were in Babylon. They were exiles, having been conveyed as captives to a foreign land, Daniel 1:1-2.

II. The purpose of the king, Nebuchadnezzar, to bring forward the principal talent to be found among the Jewish captives, and to put it under a process of training, that it might be employed at the court, Daniel 1:3-4. In carrying out this purpose, a confidential officer of the court, Ashpenaz, was directed to search out among the captives the most promising youths, whether by birth or talent, and to put them under a process of training, that they might become fully instructed in the science of the Chaldeans. What were the reasons which led to this cannot be known with certainty. They may have been such as these;

(1) The Chaldeans had devoted themselves to science, especially to those sciences which promised any information respecting future events, the secrets of the unseen world, etc. Hence, they either originated or adopted the science of astrology; they practiced the arts of magic; they studied to interpret dreams; and, in general, they made use of all the means which it was then supposed could be employed to unlock the secrets of the invisible world, and to disclose the future.

(2) They could not have been ignorant of the fact, that the Hebrews claimed to have communications with God. They had doubtless heard of their prophets, and of their being able to foretell what was to occur. This kind of knowledge would fall in with the objects at which the Chaldeans aimed, and if they could avail themselves of it, it would enable them to secure what they so ardently sought. It is probable that they considered this as a sort of "permanent" power which the Hebrew prophets had, and supposed that at all times, and on all subjects, they could interpret dreams, and solve the various questions about which their own magicians were so much engaged. It is not to be presumed that they had any very accurate knowledge of the exact character of the Hebrew prophecies, or the nature of the communication which the prophets had with God; but it was not unnatural for them to suppose that this spirit of prophecy or divination would be possessed by the most noble and the most talented of the land. Hence, Ashpenaz was instructed to select those of the royal family, and those in whom there was no blemish, and who were handsome, and who were distinguished for knowledge, and to prepare them, by a suitable course, for being presented to the king.

(3) It may have been the purpose of the Chaldean monarch to bring forward all the talent of the realm, whether native or foreign, to be employed in the service of the government. There is no reason to suppose that there was any jealousy of foreign talent, or any reluctance to employ it in any proper way, in promoting the interests of the kingdom. As the Chaldean monarch had now in his possession the Hebrew royal family, and all the principal men that had been distinguished in Judea, it was not unnatural to suppose that there might be valuable talent among them of which he might avail himself, and which would add to the splendor of his own court and cabinet. It might have been naturally supposed, also, that it would tend much to conciliate the captives themselves, and repress any existing impatience, or insubordination, to select the most noble and the most gifted of them, and to employ them in the service of the government; and in any questions that might arise between the government and the captive nation, it would be an advantage for the government to be able to employ native-born Hebrews in making known the wishes and purposes of the government. It was, moreover, in accordance with the proud spirit of Nebuchadnezzar (see Daniel 4) to surround himself with all that would impart splendor to his own reign.

III. The method by which this talent was to be brought forward, Daniel 1:5-7. This was by a course of living in the manner of the royal household, with the presumption that at the end of three years, in personal appearance, and in the knowledge of the language of the Chaldeans Daniel 1:4, they would be prepared to appear at court, and to be employed in the service to which they might be appointed.

IV. The resolution of Daniel not to corrupt himself with the viands which had been appointed for him and his brethren, Daniel 1:8. He had heretofore been strictly temperate; he had avoided all luxurious living; he had abstained from wine; and, though now having all the means of luxurious indulgence at command, and being unexpectedly thrown into the temptations of a splendid Oriental court, he resolved to adhere stedfastly to his principles.

V. The apprehension of the prince of the eunuchs that this would be a ground of offence with his master, the king, and that he would himself be held responsible, Daniel 1:9-10. This was a very natural apprehension, as the command seems to have been positive, and as an Oriental monarch was entirely despotic. It was not unreasonable for him to whom this office was entrusted to suppose that a failure on his part to accomplish what he had been directed to do would be followed by a loss of place or life.

VI. The experiment, and the result, Daniel 1:11-17. Daniel asked that a trial might be made of the effects of temperance in preparing him and his companions for presentation at court. He requested that they might be permitted, even for a brief time, yet long enough to make a fair experiment, to abstain from wine, and the other luxuries of the royal table, and that then it might be determined whether they should be allowed to continue the experiment. The result was as he had anticipated. At the end of ten days, on a fair comparison with those who had indulged in luxurious living, the benefit of their course was apparent, and they were permitted to continue this strict abstinence during the remainder of the time which was deemed necessary for their preparation to appear at court.

VII. The presentation at court, Daniel 1:18-21. At the end of the time appointed for preparation, Daniel and his selected companions were brought into the royal presence, and met with the most favorable reception which could have been hoped for. They were distinguished, it would seem, for beauty and manly vigour, and as much distinguished for wisdom as they were for the beauty and healthfulness of their bodily appearance. They at once took an honorable station, greatly surpassing in true wisdom and knowledge those at the court who were regarded as skilled in the arts of divination and astrology. These years of preparation we are not to suppose were spent in merely cultivating the beauty of their personal appearance, but they were doubtless employed, under all the advantages of instruction which could be afforded them, in the careful cultivation of their mental powers, and in the acquisition of all the knowledge which could be obtained under the best masters at the court of the Chaldeans. Compare Daniel 1:4.

Introduction to the Book of the Prophet Daniel

Daniel is said to have descended from the royal family of David; and he appears to have been carried into Babylon when very young, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim king of Judah, A.M. 3398, b.c. 602, or 606 before the vulgar era. He and his three fellow-captives, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, being likely youths, were chosen to be about the king's court, and were appointed to have an education suitable to the employments for which they were destined. As they had been carefully bred up in the Mosaic institutions, they regulated their conduct by them, even in the court of a heathen king, where they were in the capacity of slaves; hence, though ordered to be fed from the royal table, they would not touch that food, because the Chaldeans ate of meat forbidden by the Mosaic law, and probably even that which might be dominated clean became defiled by having been sacrificed to idols before it was prepared for common use. At their earnest request, the officer under whose care they were placed permitted them to use vegetables only; and finding that they grew healthy and strong by this aliment, did not oblige them to use the portion sent from the king's table.

Daniel appears to have been instructed in all the wisdom of the Chaldeans, which was at that time greatly superior to the learning of the ancient Egyptians; and he was soon distinguished in the Babylonish court, as well for his wisdom and strong understanding as for his deep and steady piety.

His interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the variously compounded metallic image raised his credit so high at the court that he was established governor of the province of Babylon, and made chief of all the Magians, or wise men in that country. The chief facts and incidents of his history are so particularly woven throughout the book bearing his name, and undoubtedly written by himself, that they need not be detailed here.

The reputation of Daniel was so great, even in his lifetime, that it became a proverb. "Thou art wiser than Daniel," said Ezekiel ironically to the king of Tyre, Ezekiel 28:3; and by the same prophet God ranks him among the most holy and exemplary of men, when he declares, speaking relative to Jerusalem, which had been condemned to destruction, "Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own lives by their righteousness," Ezekiel 14:14, Ezekiel 14:20.

Josephus, Ant. lib. x., c. 12, says that God bestowed many favors on him: that he was advanced to the rank of the most considerable prophets; that he enjoyed the favor of princes, and the affection of the people during his life; and that after his death his memory became immortal. He observes also that, in the complexion of his predictions, he differs widely from all other prophets; they foretold scarcely any thing but disastrous events; on the contrary, he predicts the most joyous events, and fixes the times of accomplishment with more circumstantial precision than they did. And this is so true, that we cannot help thinking that God had given this eminent man a greater degree of light to fix the times when his predictions should issue, than he had given in general to all his predecessors, who simply declared the mind of God in relation to things future, without attempting to indicate the distance of time in which they should be fulfilled. There are but very few exceptions to this either in Isaiah or Jeremiah. And in this respect the prophecy of the seventy weeks of Daniel exceeds all that have gone before, as the incidents and transactions relative to its fulfillment were so various, and yet so fixed and declared six hundred years before the time, that when the time came in which they were predicted to take place, they were expected, and occurred exactly according to the prediction, and the expectations founded upon it. This prophet therefore, far from occupying a lower place among divinely inspired men, deserves to be placed in the front rank with all those who have been most distinguished among the men who have partaken most largely of the prophetic gift.

The rabbins have endeavored to degrade Daniel, and have placed his prophecies among the hagiographa, books which they consider to possess a minor degree of inspiration; and it is probable that he meets with this treatment from them because his prophecies are proofs too evident that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah, and that he came at the very time that Daniel said the Prince Messiah should come. But the testimony and sayings of such men are infinitely overpowered by the testimony of Ezekiel, which has been produced above; and the testimony of our Lord, who gives him the title of prophet, Matthew 24:15, without the slightest intimation that he was to wear this title with abatement.

It is very probable that Daniel did not return at the general restoration from the Babylonish captivity. At that time, if alive, he must have been an old man; and it is most likely that he finished his days in Babylon, though some Asiatic authors hold that he returned to Judea with Ezra, came back afterward to Persia, and died in the city of Susa.

Josephus speaks of his skill in architecture, Antiq. lib. x., c. 12, and that he built a famous tower at Ecbatane or Susa, which remained to his time, and was so exquisitely finished that it always appeared as if newly built. In this tower or palace the kings of Persia were interred; and in consideration of its founder, the guard of it was always chosen from the Jews.

Daniel is famous among the orientalists. The author of the Tareekh Muntekheb says that Daniel flourished in the time of Lohorasp, king of Persia; and consequently in that of Ceresh, of Cyrus, who gave him the government of Syria; that he taught these two princes the knowledge of the true God; that he preached the true faith through the whole of the Babylonian Irak; and was, on the death of Nebuchadnezzar, sent by Bahman, (Artaxerxes Longimanus), son of Asfendiar, who then reigned in Persia, into Judea; and that, having returned, he died at Shouster, or Susa, the capital of Persia, where he lies interred.

Some have supposed that the Zoraster or Zeradusht of the Persians is a confused picture of the Prophet Daniel. The account given by Abul Pharaje, in his fifth dynasty, may be considered favorable to this opinion. He says, "Zeradusht, author of the Magiouseiah Magism, or sect of the worshippers of fire, flourished in the reign of Cambasous, (Cambyses); that he was a native of the province of Adherbigian, or Media, or, according to others, of Assyria; that he foretold to his disciples the coming of the Messiah, who should be pointed out by a star which should appear in the day time at his birth; that they should have the first information of his advent; that he should be born of a virgin; and that they should present him with gifts; because he is the Word that made the heavens." See Pococke's Abul Pharajius, p. 83 of the Arabic, and 54 of the Latin.

D'Herbelot, on this account, makes the following remark: "We may see by these words of the historian, that the prophesy of Balaam was pretty generally known throughout the east, and that the Magi, who came to worship our Lord, were the true Magians of Persia, and not Arab kings."

The account given by Abul Pharaje makes Daniel and Zeradusht contemporary, and thus far is favorable to the opinion that the history of former may be dismissed under that of the latter. There have been several Zoroasters, of whom many fables are told; and no wonder, when the persons themselves are generally fabulous.

The Asiatics make him the inventor of remel, or geomancy; and among them he passes for the author of a work entitled Assoul ol Tabeer, "The Principles of the Interpretation of Dreams." I have in my own library a very ancient work which pretends to be drawn from this, and is entitled Somnia Daniel; it was printed in the infancy of printing, but without date; small 4to. There is an Arabic work in the French king's library, No. 410, entitled Odhmet al Mancoul, an Danial an Nabi, "The Traditionary Predictions of Daniel the Prophet;" which is said to contain many falsities, built on the foundation of Daniel's prophecies; but it has never been given to the public, and I have no other notice of it than the above from D'Herbelot. But although all these are curious from their antiquity, yet they are doubtless impostures.

Abul Pharaje, in his history of the dynasties, says, that the seventy weeks of Daniel are to be dated from the twentieth year of Ardsheer Dirazdest, the Artaxerxes Longimanus of the Greeks, (called Bahman above), and the same to whom Nehemiah was sakee, or cup-bearer. Other orientalists are of the same opinion. This shall be considered more at large when we come to the prophecy itself.

Artaxerxes had the name of Longimanus, or Long-handed, from the great extent of his dominions.

Daniel cannot be ranked among the Hebrew poets: his book is all in prose; and it is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee. The Chaldee, or Syro-Chaldaic part, begins with מלכא לעלמין חיי malka lealmin chei, "O king, live for ever!" and continues to the end of the seventh chapter.

In the interpretation of his prophecies I have endeavored to follow the best critics and chronologists; and, without an extended comment, to give in as short a space as possible the meaning of every place. On the metallic images and seventy weeks I have been obliged to be more prolix, as these are of too much importance to be slightly handled. It is not my province to enter into the controversy about the date when the seventy weeks commence; even they who disagree so much from each other on this point come so near to the general issue that the difference is immaterial.

The chronology of the several events mentioned in this book Calmet endeavors to fix as follows: -

A.M. Event 3398 Daniel led captive to Babylon, Daniel 1:1-7. 3399 Death of Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar. 3401 Jehoiakim revolts against Nebuchadnezzar, 2 Kings 24:1. 3402 Dream of the compound statue, Daniel 2:1, etc. Daniel and his companions promoted to honor at court. Birth of Cyrus, son of Cambyses and Mandane. 3405 Jehoiakim is taken and put to death by the Chaldeans. Jeconiah is raised to his throne, but reigns only three months and ten days. Zedekiah, last king of Judah, succeeds; and reigns eleven years. 3416 Taking of Jerusalem, and destruction of the temple, 2 Chronicles 36. 3434 Return of Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon after his great conquests in Phoenicia, Judea, Egypt, etc. His dream of the great tree, 2 Chronicles 4:7, etc. 3435 He becomes insane, which lasts for seven years, 4:32, 33. 3442 He becomes sane, and re-ascends the throne. The golden image set up. The three Hebrews cast into the fiery furnace, 2: Death of Nebuchadnezzar after a reign of forty-three years, according to Berosus. Evil-Merodach succeeds him, and reigns two years. - Berosus. He sets Jeconiah at liberty, Jeremiah 52:31. 3444 Belshazzar his son succeeds, Daniel 7:1. Daniel's vision of the four beasts, representing the four great empires, chap. 7. 3447 Vision of the ram and he-goat, 8: The death of Belshazzar, chap. 5. 3449 Darius the Mede, called Cyaxares by Xenophon, and Astyages in the Apocrypha, son of Astyages, king of the Medes, and maternal great uncle to Belshazzar, succeeds him in the government of Chaldea, Daniel 5:30, Daniel 5:31. See Isaiah 13:1, etc. The visions of Daniel related, chap. 9, 10, 11, Daniel 12:1-13 : Cyrus attacks the Medes in the first or second year of Darius the Mede, Daniel 10:1. 3455 Daniel is cast into the den of lions, chap. 6. 3456 Death of Darius. Cyrus succeeds him. 3457 End of the Babylonish captivity declared by Cyrus, in the first year of his reign, 2 Chronicles 36:22, and Ezra 1:1; but afterward interrupted. See below. 3485 Termination of Jeremiah's seventy years under Darius Hystaspes, who gives orders to continue the rebuilding of the temple. 3550 Commencement of the seventy weeks, Daniel 9:24. Nehemiah returns to Jerusalem, Nehemiah 2:1-6.

In this chronology Calmet differs from Usher.

As a writer, this prophet is simple, yet pure and correct: and he is so conscientious that he relates the very words of those persons whom he introduces as speaking. He writes Hebrew where what he delivers is a bare narrative; but he relates in Chaldee the conversations which he had with the wise men and the kings; and in the same language he relates Nebuchadnezzar's edict, which he made after Daniel had interpreted his dream concerning the great metalline image. This is a proof of his great and conscientious accuracy; and exhibits this prophet in a most advantageous point of view. Daniel writes both Hebrew and Chaldee with great purity.

This book divides itself into two parts.

Part 1 is historical, and is contained in the six former chapters.

Part 2: is prophetical, and occupies the other six.

This chapter begins with giving a short account of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Judea, when Jehoiakim became tributary to him; and consequently the seventy years' captivity and vassalage began, Daniel 1:1, Daniel 1:2. On this expedition (taking Egypt in his way) the king of Babylon set out towards the end of the third year of Jehoiakim, but did not take Jerusalem before the ninth month of the year following. Hence the seeming discrepancy between Daniel and Jeremiah, (Jeremiah 25:1), the one computing from the time of his setting out on the expedition, and the other from the time in which the purpose of it was accomplished. We have next an account of the manner in which Daniel and his companions were brought up at the king's court, Daniel 1:3-7. They reject the daily provision of meat granted by the king, lest they should be defiled, and are allowed to live on pulse, Daniel 1:8-16. Their great proficiency in the wisdom of that time, Daniel 1:17-20. Daniel flourishes till the reign of Cyrus the Persian, Daniel 1:21.

INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL

This book is called, in the Vulgate Latin version, "the Prophecy of Daniel"; and in the Syriac and Arabic versions "the Prophecy of Daniel the Prophet". This Daniel was of the children of Judah, that were carried captive into Babylon with Jehoiakim; and was of princely blood, if not of the royal seed, as appears from, Daniel 1:3. Josephus (a) is express for it, that he was of the kindred and family of Zedekiah: and Saadiah Gaon (b) says he was of the seed of Hezekiah, and so fulfilled the prophecy in 2 Kings 20:18. As to what the author of the "Lives of the Prophets", ascribed to Epiphanius, says (c), that he was born in upper Bethabara, not far from Jerusalem, it is not to be depended on; or that his father's name was Sabaam, according to a tradition mentioned by the true Epiphanius (d). The Jews (e) would have it that this book was not written by Daniel himself, but by the men of the great synagogue; though it is evident, from the book itself, that Daniel is the writer of it, as from Daniel 7:1. That he wrote books, which were received, read, and believed by the Jews as of God, is affirmed by Josephus (f); and the Jews in general acknowledge that this book was written by the influence of the Holy Spirit, but not by prophecy; they, without any foundation, distinguishing between the Holy Spirit and prophecy. And so Maimonides says (g), it is the general consent of their nation, that this book is among the holy writings, but not among the Prophets; nor will they allow Daniel to be a prophet: the reasons they give are frivolous; what seems to have induced them to degrade him is the manifest prophecy of the time of the Messiah's coming in this book, which sometimes they are obliged to own is fixed in it. They tell us a story of Jonathan ben Uzziel, that having finished his paraphrase of the Prophets, thought to have wrote one on the Hagiographa, or holy writings, among which they place the book of Daniel; but was forbid by "Bath Kol", or a voice from heaven, giving this as a reason, because that in it is contained the end of the Messiah (h), the precise time of his coming; and the gloss on the passage adds, by way of explanation,

"in the book of Daniel;''

though elsewhere they would have it, that after it was made known to Daniel, it was taken away from him. For so, they say (i), there are two men to whom the end was revealed, and afterwards it was hidden from them; and these are they, Jacob and Daniel: from Daniel, according to Daniel 12:4, "but thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book &c.", from Jacob, Genesis 49:1, "that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days". Yet the prophecy of Daniel was so clear, with respect to the time of the Messiah's coming, that one of their Rabbins, who lived about fifty years before the coming of Christ, asserted that the time of the Messiah, as signified by Daniel, could not be deferred longer than those fifty years (k); and a most glaring prophecy it is, and sufficient to denominate Daniel a prophet, as well as many more contained in this book. And, after all, Maimonides himself owns, that he, and the other writers of the Hagiographa, or holy writings, may be called prophets in general. And Aben Ezra observes of Daniel, in his preface, that he delivered out prophecies of things now past, and of things to come; yea, he expressly calls him a prophet on Daniel 1:17. And Jacchiades, another of their commentators on this book, says that he attained to the highest degree of prophecy. To which may be added the testimony of Josephus (l), who says he was one of the greatest prophets, and to be preferred to others; since he not only predicted things future, but fixed the time when they should come to pass. And, above all, and what should satisfy us Christians, he is expressly called a prophet by our Lord, Matthew 24:15. There are no other authentic writings of Daniel, which bear his name; the stories of Susannah, and of Bel and the Dragon, which make the "thirteenth" and "fourteenth" chapters in the Greek of Theodotion, and in the Vulgate Latin version, are apocryphal and spurious. The Oriental writers make Daniel the author of a volume, entitled, "Principles relating to the Explanation of Dreams". And there is another book in the king of France's library, with this title, "Odmath-al-mantoul ân Daniel al-nabi"; which contains predictions of the Prophet Daniel, received by tradition from him. This is a book which abounds with falsities, forged by the Mahometans, and founded on the real prophecies of Daniel (m). This book, written by him, is partly historical, relating facts in which he was concerned; and partly prophetic, of things that should happen from his time to the end of the world, and especially of the Messiah and his kingdom; and it is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee. This great man, as he was both in nature and grace, in religion and politics, lived throughout the captivity, but does not seem ever to have returned into Judea; but continued in the courts of the kings of the Medes and Persians, to take care of the affairs of his people the Jews. Where he died, and was buried, is not certain. Some say in Babylon; and others, which is more likely, at Susa on the Tigris, where he was in the third year of Cyrus, Daniel 10:1. So says Abulfeda (n); with which agrees the account of Benjamin of Tudela (o).

(a) Antiqu. l. 10. c. 10. sect. 1.((b) Comment. in Dan. i. 5. (c) Pseudo-Epiphan, de Vit. Prophet. c. 10. (d) Contra Haeres. haeres. 55. (e) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 15. 1.((f) Antiqu. l. 10. c. 10. sect. 7. (g) Moreh Nevochim, par. 2. c. 45. (h) T. Bab. Megillah, fol. 3. 1. (i) Bereshit Rabba, sect. 98. fol. 84. 4. (k) R. Nehumiah apud Grotium, de Ver. Relig. Christ. I. 5. sect. 14. (l) Ibid. ( Antiqu. l. 10. c. 10. sect. 7.) ut supra. (m) Calmet's Dictionary, in the word "Daniel". (n) Apud Schickard. Not. in Purim. (o) Itinerar. p. 86.

INTRODUCTION TO Daniel 1.

This chapter begins with an account of the first captivity of the Jews, in the times of Jehoiakim; of which captivity Daniel was one, and it is mentioned on his account, Daniel 1:1, who, with others, were selected by the order of the king of Babylon, to be educated in the learning of the Chaldeans, and to be maintained at his expense, in order to be his ministers, Daniel 1:3, but Daniel and his three companions refused the king's meat and wine, lest they should be defiled; in which they were indulged by their governor, after trial being made, that they were fairer and fatter for it, Daniel 1:8, and, at the end of the time appointed, they appeared to have a large share of knowledge, wisdom, and learning; upon which they were taken into the king's court and service, Daniel 1:17, and the chapter is concluded with observing the long continuation of Daniel here, even to the first year of Cyrus, Daniel 1:21.

THE BOOK OF DANIEL.

Daniel.

BY

THE REV. H. DEANE, B.D.,

Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE BOOK OF DANIEL.

I. Personal history of Daniel.—Of the personal history of this great seer nothing is known beyond what is recorded of him in the Book of Daniel. Being apparently of royal descent (Daniel 1:3), and when still a youth, he was taken to Babylon captive by Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. As history does not state that he ever revisited his native land, it is highly probable that he continued in the East from the year of his exile till the third year of Cyrus, which is the last date mentioned in the book. Here his position and his well-known character, no doubt, enabled him to render much aid to his fellow-countrymen, whether at home or in exile.

During this long period he had witnessed the marvellous and rapid growth of the Babylonian empire under Nebuchadnezzar. He then watched the gradual decay of this mighty empire after the decease of its founder; he saw the final collapse of it, and witnessed the first beginning of the Persian supremacy, under which, as well as during the short period that a Median viceroy presided over Babylonia, he probably maintained the high position which he had filled during his younger days. The date of his death, like that of his birth, is unknown, but his prophetic activity must have lasted over seventy years. The first of the exiles himself, he lived to see the return of the Jews under Zerubbabel, and to hear of the opposition offered by the Samaritans to the progress of the works at Jerusalem. His fame spread among the exiles who resided in remoter parts of the Babylonian empire, and one of these, the prophet Ezekiel, mentions his wisdom (Ezekiel 28:3), and hints at his intercession (Ezekiel 14:14) for the lives of certain persons. (See Daniel 2:24.)

II. Authorship of the Book of Daniel.—The Book of Daniel is anonymous. No title is prefixed to it such as appears in the case of the books of Isaiah or Jeremiah. It begins abruptly with the statement of a historical fact connected with the reign of Jehoiakim. It then proceeds to state certain incidents that occurred in the lives of Daniel and of his three friends; it then gives an account of various visions and revelations which God gave to the seer; and concludes with the solemn words, “Thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of days” (Daniel 12:13). In no place is it definitely stated that the author of the book was Daniel himself.

A closer inspection of the book, however, brings to light a remarkable feature in it. Throughout the first six chapters Daniel is invariably spoken of in the third person. Throughout the last six chapters, with three exceptions, Daniel invariably speaks of himself in the first person. Hence a conclusion might be drawn that we have traces of two authors, a biographer and an autobiographer, and that the book is a compilation taken from the two sources. But is such a conclusion justifiable?

Apparently not. For throughout the last six chapters Daniel claims to have seen certain visions, and to have received certain revelations; a vision of four beasts (Daniel 7), which represented four kingdoms, three of which the reader has to identify for himself; a vision of two beasts (Daniel 8), which, according to the words of the heavenly messenger, represented the Medo-Persian and the Greek empires; a revelation of a period of seventy weeks (Daniel 9), which were closely connected with the destiny of his people; and, finally, a revelation concerning certain events which were to occur after the dissolution of the Greek empire. Each of these visions and revelations is introduced to the reader respectively by the words, “I saw in my vision,” “a vision appeared unto me,” “I understood by books,” “I lifted up mine eyes and looked.” It is obvious, therefore, that the last six chapters claim to have been composed by Daniel.

But we notice a remarkable correspondence between the first six and the last six chapters. Each chapter of the former series is a prelude to the latter series. The whole of the first series is essential to render the latter series intelligible. Again, the writer of each series is equally familiar with Hebrew and Chaldee. The same peculiar phrases and forms of language, some of them being exceedingly rare, may be noticed in each series. It is highly improbable that a work which is written upon so definite a plan, which has, moreover, such complete uniformity of style, should be the work of more than one author. If then the author of the latter part was a man named Daniel, it is reasonable to suppose that the former part was written by the same Daniel. In fact, the change from the third to the first person no more disproves that Daniel was the author of the whole work, than a similar alteration of persons in Jeremiah 24:1; Jeremiah 25:1, proves that Jeremiah wrote the former but not the latter chapter. It may then be assumed that the whole book claims to have been written by Daniel.

III. Date of authorship of the Book of Daniel.—Let it be granted that there was only one author of the book, and this is now almost universally acknowledged, it remains to make an approximation to the period when it was composed. And first we must examine what the author states about himself. He claims to have “continued” (Daniel 1:21) from the time of Nebuchadnezzar to the first year of Cyrus, and also (Daniel 10:1) to have received a revelation from God in the third year of Cyrus. He thus gives the extreme limits within which his activity continued. He adds that he was appointed by Nebuchadnezzar “to be ruler over the whole province of Babylon” (Daniel 2:48). He was employed at court in the third year of Belshazzar (Daniel 8:27), and on the night when Belshazzar was slain became “third ruler in the kingdom” (Daniel 5:29). Some similar position he occupied during the obscure reign of Darius the Mede (Daniel 6:3). From what the author states of himself we gather that he lived chiefly under the Babylonian empire.

The internal evidence of the book bears this out. The author exhibits a very minute acquaintance with Babylon. He is aware of the three classes of magicians (Daniel 2:2), who are known from external sources to have existed in Babylon. He knows the magician’s phraseology “dissolving of doubts” (Daniel 5:12); their theology, which recognised “gods whose dwelling is not with flesh” (Daniel 2:11); and the sacred character of Babylonian numbers (Daniel 3:1; Daniel 3:19). Besides other smaller points, he is acquainted with Babylonian dress (Daniel 3:21), and Babylonian punishments (Daniel 2:5; Daniel 3:6). Minute particulars like these, recorded as they are casually and parenthetically, betray an author living in Babylon.

His knowledge of Persia is very slight. He does not even profess to have lived later than Cyrus, and consequently he only knew Persia, as it were, in her infancy. He was only aware of three Persian kings after Cyrus (Daniel 11:2), instead of a series of monarchs whose united reigns extended over nearly two hundred years. He was aware of the existence of Greece, and claims to have received a revelation that the power of Greece would overthrow the Persian empire, and that the Greek empire would only last during the reign of the first king. But he is uninformed of the important stages by which the Persian empire was dissolved and superseded by the Grecian.

Of historical events that occurred after the establishment of the Greek empire he knows still less. It is revealed to him that the Greek empire would finally be divided into four parts, and perhaps also that two of these should materially influence the fortunes of his people; but it is remarkable that there is an absence of anything like minute accuracy in the delineation of many of the most important events of this time. While certain events, such as the wars of Ptolemy Philopator and Antiochus the Great, or the persecutions in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, may perhaps be pointed out, yet other events of great importance are omitted, such as the Maccabee wars, and others are described in such a way as is not recorded in history, such as the death of Antiochus. (See Notes on Daniel 11)

It appears then that the internal evidence, slight though it is, favours the hypothesis that the author lived in the Babylonian period rather than later. Difficulties have to be encountered under any hypothesis as to the date of the authorship of the book, but those that are involved in the hypothesis of an early date are the least formidable. (See below, § 6.)

Another fact deserves notice. The author, though not claiming the title of prophet, and not anywhere styled as such in the Old Testament, yet claims to have received certain revelations from God. If therefore he was desirous that his book should be received by his contemporaries, he must have lived at a time when the gift of prediction, or the spirit of prophecy, was still extant. But this gift was extinct in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. It is therefore necessary to place the author of the book of Daniel at an earlier period: it would certainly be inconsistent with the Maccabee times to suppose that so great a seer as Daniel could have then existed, for, according to the trustworthy historian of those times, the people then complained of the entire absence of prophets. (1 Maccabees 4:45-46; 1 Maccabees 9:27; 1 Maccabees 14:41.)

The external evidence bearing upon the date of the book of Daniel is very slight. We know that it existed in the first century of the Christian era, from the evident allusions to it in Matthew 24:15, John 5:28, Matthew 13:43. (Comp. Daniel 9:27; Daniel 12:2-3.) These references, and the words of our Saviour (Luke 21:27, where He refers to Daniel 7:13), are sufficient for those who believe in His divinity to establish the authority of the book.

To the testimony of the New Testament must be added that of Josephus. He cites largely from the Book of Daniel, and states that the author was favoured by God as one of the greatest of prophets, that his writings were then read, and that it might be inferred that Daniel had converse with God (Ant. x. 11, 7). Josephus states still further that Daniel not only foretold the future as other prophets had done, but that he defined the time when the events should occur. (See also Ant. x. 8, § 5.)

At least 150 years previous to Josephus, if not earlier, we find references to the book of Daniel as a work already in existence. In three passages of the work already referred to (1 Maccabees 1:54; 1 Maccabees 9:27; 1 Maccabees 9:40) there appears to be a verbal allusion to the Greek version of Daniel 9:27; Daniel 12:1; Daniel 11:27, while it is hard to read the speech of Mattathias (1 Maccabees 2:49) without seeing references to the language in which Daniel spoke of the coming tribulation; and not only is the example of Daniel mentioned (1 Maccabees 2:60), but also the story of the three holy children is alluded to as one that was well known. It is highly improbable that a book of recent origin should have acquired so great a notoriety. And on the other hand, as there is no other known source of the story of Daniel except the book of Daniel, it is highly probable that if the story was known B.C. 167, the book must have existed also.

Unfortunately we are unable to find any earlier traces of the book. There are hardly any fragments remaining of Hebrew literature which belong to the period intervening between the last book in the Old Testament canon and the book of Maccabees. We are therefore led back to the times of Daniel himself, and then we find a man named Daniel mentioned by Ezekiel, who corresponds (see § 1) with the Daniel who claims to be the author of this book.

It must be remembered that very little is known of Hebrew literature or of Jewish history from the time of Nehemiah down to the Maccabee period. It is therefore impossible to give a series of authorities who bear witness to the existence of the book of Daniel up to the earliest times, and so to give a rigid demonstration of the date of the book. The following facts. however, have been stated above. (1) The Book of Daniel claims to have been written by a man named Daniel. (2) This Daniel was intimately acquainted with Babylon and many customs of Babylon. (3) He was much less acquainted with Persia. (4) He betrays still less knowledge of the Greek empire and of the Seleucidæ. (5) He lived at a time when the spirit of prophecy was extant. (6) The Book of Daniel was known B.C. 167. (7) Previous to the year B.C. 167 there is a blank of nearly 250 years in Jewish literature, but one of the latest Jewish authors, Ezekiel, was acquainted with a man named Daniel, who corresponds with the person who claims to be the author of the Book of Daniel.

IV. Place of the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament Canon.—The Book of Daniel, though placed in the English Version after that of Ezekiel, and reckoned among “four prophets the greater” (Art. vi.), yet occupies a very different position in the Hebrew canon. It is there placed among the Hagiographa, or sacred writings, immediately before the Book of Ezra, and not in the collection of prophetical books. This is to be accounted for by the following reasons. (1) The Hebrew prophet had a special function to fulfil under the Theocracy. He was the authorised teacher of the people. This was his special task, and it was only incidentally that he predicted the future. The prophet was essentially the preacher of righteousness to the generation amidst which he lived, and it was God’s will that in every instance simple prediction should be a subordinate function. But the case of Daniel is just the reverse. He appears before us as one that reveals the hidden future, rather than as a preacher. This is apparent by a reference to Daniel 4:20-27; Daniel 5:17-28, where it will be noticed that while predicting the future he inculcates a moral lesson. This great difference between Daniel and a prophet strictly so-called will partly account for the position of the book in the Hebrew canon. But (2) not only is Daniel a prophet in an improper sense, but the style and matter of his predictions are totally different from those of other prophets. The reader of the Book of Daniel may be compared to a person looking down a long gallery hung transversely with curtains, on which are painted different scenes, and as curtain after curtain is drawn aside the scene behind it is unveiled to his view, till at last he sees the picture at the end. In this way the writings of Daniel are apocalyptic rather than predictive. He presents the future in a series of enigmatic pictures rather than in enigmatic language. But it is not only in style that his writings differ from those of the prophets—the subject matter which he reveals is of a different nature also. While the Holy Spirit limits for the most part the prediction of the prophets to the Captivity, and to the Messiah who is to come after the close of the Captivity, Daniel mentions the Captivity and the overthrow of Jerusalem only once, and taking this as his point of view, predicts that before the coming of the Messiah Israel has to undergo another period of tribulation. The first impression produced upon the reader by the words of the prophets is that after the return from the Exile a golden age will ensue. Daniel foretells the golden age, but places it in the remote future, and mentions a further probation of Israel, which must occur before the commencement of that epoch. It may be inferred that the great difference in matter and style between the Book of Daniel and the prophetical books, strictly so called, led the men of the Great Synagogue to “write Daniel” in a different collection from that in which they inserted the twelve prophets.

V. Object of the Book of Daniel.—The Book of Daniel has more than one aim. (1) In the first place it is essential to complete the continuity of revelation. At the time of the Exile the Israelite had before him the Law, the Prophets, and the Sacred Books so far as they had been received into the canon. These were sufficient to teach him the will of God, the certainty of the return from the Exile, and the coming of the Messiah. But, as was stated above, it might have been supposed that the Messianic days were to appear immediately after the return from the Exile. The book of Daniel corrects this impression, and prepares Israel for the period that is to intervene between the close of the Captivity and the advent of the Messiah. Those glorious days cannot come till a period has passed far darker than any that has been as yet known. In fact, just as the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah led the Israelite to expect a captivity, so those of Daniel prompted him to look for a period of persecution after the return from the Exile; but at the same time they comforted him with the assurance that the duration of the persecution would be no greater than what the mercy of God would enable His servants to bear. The examples of the three holy children and of Daniel would encourage them, and the words of Daniel would comfort the Israelite in his martyrdom, as the persecuted Christian derived hope from the Saviour’s sentence, “Behold I have told you before” (Matthew 24:25). (2) But, secondly, the Book of Daniel had a very distinct object to fulfil amidst the generation in which it was written. Israel was in captivity. Her last hope at Jerusalem—the temple—was destroyed. Must it not have been a temptation to the sufferer to think that God’s promises had proved false? And even though Jeremiah had foretold a return from the Captivity at the end of seventy years: if God’s promises to King Solomon had failed, Israel might argue, why should not Jeremiah’s prophecy fail as well? Accordingly the Book of Daniel shows by what means the hopes of God’s people were sustained. The two great miracles recorded in the Book proved that God was as close to His people in Babylon as He had been at Jerusalem or in the temple. They are led to believe that He is still with them, and that He will deliver them from Babylon as He did of old from Egypt. In this way the object of the Book of Daniel was to support Israel in times of doubt and despair. (3) A further purpose of the Book may be noticed. It will be remembered that there was a considerable amount of missionary zeal among the Hebrew prophets. Not only were there instances when men like Jonah were specially sent to preach righteousness to the Gentiles, but occasionally, in the ordinary course of their ministry, the prophets addressed nations who were outside the covenant. The Book of Daniel exhibits this missionary character. We know that it was a general belief among eastern nations that when a neighbouring tribe was conquered, its gods were conquered as well. Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar both held this opinion. They thought that when Jerusalem fell Bel-Merodach had conquered Jehovah. If we may take an inference from some of the Psalms, it appears that the children of the Captivity were taunted about the weakness of their God; the enemy are described as “blaspheming God’s name,” and asking, in mocking triumph, “Where is now their God?” The Book of Daniel shows us how God made Himself known to the Babylonians, how He asserted His own power, and how in the end the king himself was brought to own the sovereign authority of Jehovah. It may therefore be said that the object of the Book of Daniel is (1) to supply a missing link in the chain of the continuity of revelation; (2) to support Israel amidst the doubts and fears occasioned by the Exile; (3) to reveal to a polytheistic nation the eternal power of the One true God.

VI. Objections to the authenticity of the Book of Daniel.—The objections to the early date of the Book of Daniel are weighty and numerous, and require more space for discussion than can here be given. They depend partly on the language, and partly on the history recorded in the book. It is asserted that (1) many names in the Book of Daniel are not of Babylonian origin, while some betray a very late date, showing that the writer must have lived as late as the Macedonian period. The proper names which are stated to be of non-Babylonian origin are Ashpenaz and Hamelsar; while neither Shadrach nor Meshach have as yet been found in Babylonian inscriptions. Nothing, however, as to the date of the Book can be inferred from these words. All that is proved by them amounts to nothing more than that certain exotic words were prevalent in Babylonia during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, just as French and German words occasionally appear among us in an English garb. Further difficulty in identifying these names is caused by the difficulty of transliterating foreign words into Hebrew characters. Again (2) the derivation of the name Belteshazzar (ch. 4:8), has been stated to be erroneous. It must be remembered, however, that the authority for this statement is the king himself, who, perhaps, did not excel in philology so much as he did in military tactics. Another word, saknu, is stated to be used in a wrong sense. Whereas the word really denotes a high civil officer, it is used in ch. 2:48 to mean an arch magician. On this point, as well as on the presence of Greek words, we must defer our judgment till we have more evidence before us. The principal historical difficulties are with regard to Belshazzar and Darius the Mede. The latter is spoken of as son of Ahasuerus. Now if by Ahasuerus is meant Xerxes, and by Darius the Mede Darius Hystaspis, the author has fallen into a considerable chronological error; but as neither of the two kings has been as yet identified, the inconsistency is only assumed. We know from Esther 1:1 that there was more than one Ahasuerus, and Greek tradition knows of more than one Darius. It is possible that Darius, like Sargon, may some day be brought to light unexpectedly, and then the difficulty about the satraps (ch. vi. 1) may find a solution. The difficulty with regard to Belshazzar is not insuperable. (See Excursus C.) We know that Nabonidus had a son named Belshazzar, and that Maruduk-sarra-usur (probably Belshazzar) was the last king of Babylon. When the queen speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as being Belshazzar’s father, the words are not to be taken literally. That Daniel lived at a late date has also been inferred from the absence of his name in the list of worthies mentioned in Ecclesiasticus 44:1. It is not plain upon what principles exactly the list was drawn up. It is certainly surprising that the names of Ezra, Mordecai, and Esther should be omitted. It appears as if the writer selected the names from the books of the Law and the Prophets, and then mentioned Nehemiah (Ecclesiasticus 49:13) as the most noteworthy saint that is recorded in the Hagiographa. Of course Ezra or Daniel would seem more naturally mentioned instead of Nehemiah; but the writer had his own peculiar views, and omitted both names. But objections of this nature are of no value, compared to those which are to be drawn from the language and history contained in the Book of Daniel. In the course of time it is possible that further discoveries will be made, which will make us as well acquainted with the period of the Exile as with the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. Till then, we must suspend a hasty judgment pronouncing this Book to be “obviously” of a later date.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES, ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE PROPHECIES OF DANIEL.

B.C.

605.Deportation of Daniel.

604.First Year of Nebuchadnezzar.

598.Submission of Jehoiakim.

597.Deportation of Jehoiachin. Reign of Zedekiah commences.

593.Rebellion of Zedekiah. Date of Ezekiel 1-7

592.Date of Ezekiel 8-19.

591.Date of Ezekiel 20-23.

590.War of Cyaxares with Alyattes.

389.Nebuchadnezzar comes to Riblah. Date of Ezekiel 24-25.

588.Date of Ezekiel 29:1-16.

587.Fall of Jerusalem. Capture of Zedekiah. Date of Ezekiel 26-28, Ezekiel 30:20-26; Ezekiel 31.

586.Siege of Tyre resumed. Ezekiel 32-34, 35 (?), 36-39 (?)

582.Deportation of Jews, mentioned Jeremiah 52:20 (Nebuchadnezzar’s 23rd year).

B.C.

577.Probable Capture of Tyre.

573.Date of Ezekiel 40-48.

571.Date of Ezekiel 29:17 to Ezekiel 30:20.

562.Death of Nebuchadnezzar. Evil Merodach.

561.Release of Jehoiachin, aged 55.

560.Murder of Evil Merodach. Neriglissar or Nergal-Sharezer.

559.Accession of Cyrus to the Median Empire.

556.Laborosoarchod. Nabonidus.

541.Probable date of Daniel 7 Belshazzar’s 1st year (?)

539.Date of Daniel 8 (?) Fall of Babylon, Daniel 5. Dariuo the Mede. Date of Daniel 9.

538.First year of Cyrus according to the Scripture reckoning. Return of the Jews under Zerubbabel.

537.Foundation Stone of the Temple laid.

536.Samaritan Opposition. Date of Daniel 10-12.

GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE PTOLEMIES AND SELEUCIDÆ, ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE LAST THREE CHAPTERS OF THE PROPHET DANIEL.

*** It must be noticed that only the principal characters are inserted in the above genealogy, and also that the application of them to the passages in Daniel rests upon only one system of interpretation.

EXCURSUS ON NOTES TO DANIEL.

EXCURSUS A: THE BABYLONIAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

IN the Babylonian records hitherto deciphered very few government officials are mentioned. Of military officers we find generals spoken of, and of civil officers, judges. If we bear in mind that the object of the inscriptions was to magnify the king rather than to give an account of the internal social organisation of the country, we shall not find much difficulty in accounting for the silence with which state officials are treated. Enough, however, remains of an ancient inscription some centuries earlier than Daniel (see Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch., vol. 1 p. 31) to show that the government of the country was carried on by “viceroys” and “rulers.” None of the names of the state officials mentioned by Daniel are etymologically connected with these, nor, strange to say, have any traces been found in the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar of the three state officers mentioned by Jeremiah—Rab-Mag, Rab-Saris, Sar-Sechim.

It remains for us, in the face of this silence, to trace out as far as possible from Daniel’s language what was the form of government at Babylon in his days. He mentions:—(1) Princes. This is apparently a Persian word, which in Greek takes the form of satrap. It occurs again in Daniel 6:1, &c.; Ezra 8:36; Esther 3:12. As the name implies, these persons were guardians of the subject kingdoms, and representatives of the monarch. They are called “kings” (Isaiah 10:8), and with respect to them the monarch is called “king of kings” (Ezekiel 26:7). (2) Governors, also of Persian derivation, meaning commanders. From the position of the word (Jeremiah 51:57), between “captains” and “mighty men,” it appears that they were military officers. (3) Captains, also a Persian word, though occurring as early as 1Kings 10:15. The position of these officials at Babylon is known from Jeremiah 51:57, Ezekiel 23:6; Ezekiel 23:23. In Persian times the title is given to the rulers of Palestine (Nehemiah 5:14), or to the governors of Persian provinces (Esther 3:12). They were subordinate to the “princes,” their functions being civil rather than military. (4) Judges, apparently from a Semitic root, meaning “to decree.” The word does not occur elsewhere, but if the etymology is correct it must mean literally “a decider.” (5) Treasurers, a Persian word connected with the same root as the word “gaza.” (6) Counsellors, connected with a Persian word meaning “law,” which is found in the books of Daniel and Esther. (7) Sheriffs, a Semitic word, apparently formed from a root which signifies “to give just sentence.” (8) Rulers, a Semitic word, the root of which is frequently found in Hebrew, whence also the modern word “Sultan” is derived.

It appears that of the eight classes of officers mentioned by Daniel, seven may be arranged in three groups: (1) provincial rulers; (2) home ministers; (3) legal advisers. The last class, the “rulers,” may perhaps comprehend the three classes already mentioned, or else may denote the subordinate rulers in each province.

These groups may be arranged as follows:—(1) Provincial officers, consisting of princes, governors, and captains. It appears as if the officers are arranged in descending order of magnitude; and first is placed the superior officer who administered the affairs of the province. As was observed above, under the Assyrian rule he was called a king, and as Daniel applies to Nebuchadnezzar the title of king of kings (Daniel 2:37), it is probable that the same custom prevailed in Babylon. He seems, therefore, to correspond to the “viceroy” who is mentioned in the ancient inscription cited above. Although the name of this officer was applied in Persian times to the satrap, it appears that under the Babylonian empire the person thus designated held a higher position than the Persian satrap. After the prince comes the governor, who, being a military man, stands to the prince in the same position as the commander of an army does to the governor of a colony. His duties were entirely secular, the only evidence to the contrary being the use of the word “governor” in Daniel 2:48. The last in authority is the captain. He most closely resembles the Persian satrap, as his office appears to be of a civil rather than of a military character. Thus far it appears that the Babylonian government was carried on by viceroys, who were each responsible to the king alone; but each viceroy had civil and military officers subordinate and responsible to himself. (2) The home ministers appear in two classes only, the “judges” and the “treasurers.” As stated above, the first of these is only mentioned in this passage, so that apart from the etymology it is impossible to infer what his duties may have been. However, paying regard to this, he seems to have performed all those duties which now fall to the share of the vizier. In home as opposed to foreign affairs, there must always have been some persons with whom lay the final appeal in all civil causes. Such, in all probability, were these judges. The “treasurers,” who are associated with the judges, were connected with the fiscal department of the administration. They would be required to examine the correctness of the revenues paid into the treasury by the provincial collectors, and perhaps a later development of their office may be traced in the royal scribe who was sent every year from the capital to inquire into the state of the province, so as to secure the allegiance of the satrap. (3) The legal advisers consist of “counsellors” and “sheriffs.” The “counsellor” was evidently the man “learned in the law.” In such a case as the decree of Nebuchadnezzar his advice would be necessary to secure due formality in the decree. The “sheriff,” in accordance with the supposed derivation of the word, was the officer entrusted with the administration of justice and pronouncing of sentences. According to this view, these two classes of officers represent the theoretical and practical lawyer, the law-maker and the executer of the law, or perhaps the civil and the criminal judge.

EXCURSUS B: THE MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS MENTIONED IN Daniel 3.

THE Babylonians as a nation appear to have been remarkably fond of music. Isaiah (Isaiah 14:11) speaks of the noise of the viols of Babylon as forming part of her pomp, and it may be presumed that the desire of the Babylonians to hear some of the strains of Zion (Psalm 137:2-3) was not uttered in mockery, but from a genuine wish, such as all persons have who really care for music at all, to hear the melodies of foreign countries. Further evidence is afforded by sculptures, which represent various musical instruments and considerable bands of performers.

Whence the Babylonian music was originally derived is not known, though probably we must look to Egypt as the source; but it may be asserted that whatever was not indigenous to Babylonia itself must have come from the same sources whence articles of commerce were acquired. At the time of Daniel, Babylon held commerce in the west with Egypt and Tyre. By means of both these lines of commerce Babylon was brought into contact with Greece, the great mistress of art in the sixth century B.C. And as we find traces among the Greek instruments of the Semitic Nabla and Kinura, it seems, à priori, highly probable that some of the Greek instruments should have found their way to Tyre, and to Egypt, and then penetrated to Babylon.

For many years previous to Nebuchadnezzar there had been considerable communication between Greece and the East. We know that 300 years earlier Sargon made Javan or Greece tributary. The statue of this king found at Idalium proves that he conquered the Greek colony of Cyprus. His son Sennacherib, we know, was engaged in war with Greeks in Cilicia. His grandson, Esarhaddon, had Greeks fighting on his side during his Asian campaign. It would be very remarkable if, during the many years throughout which Greece and Assyria were brought into connection, the musical instruments of the one nation should not have become known to the other. And if Assyria acquired Greek musical instruments, what is more probable than that many years before Nebuchadnezzar’s time they were known in Babylon?

The connection between Greece and the East did not cease with the fall of the Assyrian empire. In the army of Nebuchadnezzar we find serving as soldier the brother of the poet Alcæus, and a few lines are extant in which this great lyric writer welcomes home his brother from the Babylonian campaign. The historical notices of these times are very scanty, so that it is not easy to demonstrate the extent of Greek commerce in the sixth century B.C., but the facts mentioned above give us strong grounds for supposing that at an early period there was an interchange of musical instruments between the East and the West, and with the instruments would pass their names, which in the course of time would become more or less corrupted as the people who adopted them found it hard or easy to pronounce and transliterate the words.

We should expect therefore, à priori, in any list of Babylonian instruments, to find some of the names of Semitic, some of Greek extraction, and some of very doubtful etymology. This is precisely what we find in the book of Daniel. Of the names of the six instruments mentioned, two are undoubtedly of Semitic origin, one if not two are Greek, one is uncertain, while the sixth is perhaps not an instrument at all, though the word is undoubtedly Greek.

The instruments that have Semitic names are the “cornet” and the “flute.” They are both of great antiquity. The former is frequently found in the reliefs which represent military scenes, and the mention of it in this chapter is probably to be accounted for by the fact that the army was present.

The instruments which appear to have been derived from Greece are the “harp” and the “psaltery.” The former is frequently represented in the reliefs, possessing strings in number from three upwards. The psaltery is of uncertain etymology, but looks like a Greek word. The context requires a word to denote “cymbals,” which occur very frequently in the sculptures, and do not readily find an equivalent among the instruments mentioned by David.

What the “sackbut” may have been must be left undecided. It is true that a word sambuca occurs in Greek, but it is of foreign extraction.

The “dulcimer,” sûmphonia in the Chaldee, is probably not the name of a musical instrument, but means a “concerted piece of music.” The passages upon which it has been inferred that the sûmphonia was an instrument are Polyb. xxvi. 10, § 5, Athen. x. 53 (near the end); neither passage, however, is conclusive.

EXCURSUS C: BELSHAZZAR (Daniel 5).

Before any opinion can be pronounced upon the identification of this king with other known kings, the following questions require an answer. In Daniel 5:11, Are the words to be taken literally, and explained to mean that Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar’s own son? In Ezekiel 48:13, Does Belshazzar claim Nebuchadnezzar to be his father? (Comp. Ezekiel 48:18; Ezekiel 48:22.) And lastly, Is it stated in Ezekiel 48:30 that the Chaldean Empire passed over into the hands of the Medes and Persians? or is it only implied that an insurrection occurred in the town where the events recorded in Daniel 5 occurred, and that after the murder of Belshazzar a Median prince, called Darius, was made king in his stead?

Scripture affords us very little assistance in answering any of the above questions. The only fact which we know from the Bible about Belshazzar is that he reigned at least three years. This appears from the headings of Daniel 7, 8.

If we adhere to the literal sense of the words (Daniel 5:11), it follows that Belshazzar was the son and immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar. But when we come to examine what is known from other sources about the posterity of Nebuchadnezzar, we find no such name as Belshazzar given to his immediate successor. Evil Merodach came to the throne upon the death of his father (Jeremiah 52:31); but the fact that he had a brother named Belshazzar rests on no other authority than the interpretation which Eusebius gave of the story in Daniel. Herodotus knows nothing of Belshazzar or of Nebuchadnezzar. He mentions only two Babylonian princes, both of whom were named Labynetus (probably Nabonidus). One of these was the husband of Nitocris, and erected some of the most stately buildings in Babylon; the other was a son of hers, in whose reign Cyrus took Babylon.

The fragments of Berosus and Abydenus, and the Canon of Ptolemy, confirm the Scriptural account, according to which Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by Evil Merodach. They add that after a “lawless and lustful reign,” Evil Merodach was murdered in a con. spiracy led by Neriglissar. Neriglissar reigned four years, and was succeeded by his son Laborosoarchod, who was soon murdered. Then Nabonidus, one of the conspirators, usurped the throne, which he held for eighteen years, when, upon the assault of Babvlon by Cyrus, he was taken prisoner at Borsippa, where he had fled for safety. It seems impossible to identify Belshazzar with any of these. If he was the same as Evil Merodach, then Darius the Mede and Neriglissar must have been the same person, which is impossible. Similar difficulties prevent us from identifying him with Laborosoarchod, so that the ancient fragments do not help us to arrive at any conclusion.

Babylonian inscriptions, however, speak of a certain Bel-sar-usur as the son of Nabonidus. An inscription (Records of the Past, vol. v., p. 147) concludes with a prayer of Nabonidus, praying the moon to preserve “his eldest son, the offspring of his body, Bel-sar-usur.” Thus the existence of Belshazzar is unquestionable, though no inscription hitherto discovered speaks of him as king. However, the name of the last king of Babylon was Maruduk-sarra-usur, which is not unlike Belshazzar.

Still more recent discoveries have been made, and in the inscription of Cyrus we find that he mentions his taking Babylon without bloodshed, and states that Nabonidus was taken prisoner. He also mentions that the king’s son—probably Belshazzar—was at Accad, “with his great men and soldiers,” in the same year as the capture of Babylon, and that the men of Accad raised a revolt. Farther on in the inscription, which is much mutilated, a statement is made, “and the king died. From the seventh of the month Adar unto the third day of the month Nisan there was weeping in Accad.” Now, according to the last mention made of Nabonidus in this inscription, he was taken bound to Babylon. It is highly probable, therefore, that the king who died at Accad was the “king’s son” mentioned in an earlier part of the inscription. May it not be conjectured that this was Belshazzar, and that the scene described in Daniel 5 occurred at Accad, and not at Babylon? Further discoveries may throw light upon this point.

Ancient opinions about Belshazzar are various. Ephraim Syrus, the earliest writer on Daniel whose commentary has come down to us complete, states that he was son of Nebuchadnezzar, and wisely refrains from further attempts at identification. St. Jerome, a little later, identifies him with Laborosoarchod, cautioning the reader against supposing that he was son of Nebuchadnezzar. Theodoret, adhering to the literal sense of Daniel, supposes him to have been the younger brother of Evil Merodach. The opinion of St. Jerome is supported by Havernick, Hengstenberg, and Keil; Kranichfeld, Zöckler, and Zündel believe in the identity of Belshazzar and Evil Merodach; Dr. Pusey, Delitzsch, Schrader, and the two most recent of English commentators, identify him with his father, Nabonidus, or assume that he was appointed co-regent with his father.

EXCURSUS D: DARIUS THE MEDE (Daniel 5:31).

It appears from the account given by Daniel that Darius the Mede was the sovereign appointed to rule over Babylonia after the death of Belshazzar. Cyrus, after the capture of Babylon, appointed a man named Gubaru (Gobryas) as his governor at Babylon. Can he and Darius the Mede be the same person? It is impossible to identify Darius with any personage mentioned in profane history, and hitherto no traces of any such name have been found in Babylonian inscriptions belonging to this period. Till time or circumstances shall give further information, we must maintain that a book like Daniel’s, which is correct on many minor points, cannot fail to be accurate upon the subject of Darius.

Difficulties were experienced at a very early time in reference to this subject. The LXX., assuming that Ahasuerus (Daniel 9:1) was Xerxes, identified him with Artaxerxes. The opinion of Josephus is that Darius (Antt. x. 11, § 4) and his kinsman Cyrus destroyed the supremacy of Babylon; and at the fall of the capital, this Darius, son of Astyages, took Daniel with him to Media, and placed him in an exalted situation. St. Jerome agrees to this relationship between Cyrus and Darius. St. Ephraim is silent; but Theodoret goes further, and identifies Darius with Cyaxares, son of Astyages. In modern times the identity of Darius with Cyaxares II. has been strongly maintained, though without paying sufficient attention to the very slight evidence in favour of the existence of the latter. The identification of Darius with Astyages has an obvious refutation, for in B.C. 536 Astyages would have exceeded the age ascribed to Darius by Daniel (Daniel 5:31).

It is evident from history that Cyrus was the immediate conqueror of Babylon, and that no Median Empire came between the Babylonian and the Persian Empires. It is also clear that Daniel regards Darius as one who “received the kingdom” (Daniel 5:31), and who “was made king” (Daniel 9:1). If the word Darius means “a maintainor,” all that is mentioned in this chapter amounts to no more than the statement that a Median governor took the kingdom.” How. ever, the use of the word (Daniel 9:1) requires the name of a person rather than an office.

EXCURSUS E: THE FOUR KINGDOMS (Daniel 2, 7).

In the notes upon the parallel, though supplementary, vision contained in Daniel 2, 7 attention has been directed to each of the four empires which has hitherto governed the world. It has been explained in the notes that these four empires are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Græco-Macedonian, and the Roman. The fourth empire in each case is succeeded by the kingdom of the Messiah, which in Daniel 2 is symbolised by a stone, but in Daniel 7:27 is described more clearly as the “kingdom of the people of the saints of the Most High.” This view of the four kingdoms is found in the early part of the second century A.D. maintained by the author of the epistle of Barnabas, who speaks of the ten kingdoms (Barn., Ep. iv. 4, 5) foretold by Daniel as then existing, and of the fourth beast as then reigning. The fragments of St. Hippolytus show that the same opinion prevailed in the Church a century later. The longer ecclesiastical commentaries of St. Jerome and Theodoret maintain the same opinion, which has been followed in modern times, with some modifications, by a large number of commentators.

A second view, of great antiquity, is mentioned by Porphyry, who flourished in the third century. His opinion coincided with the interpretation just mentioned up to a certain point. He made the panther, or third beast, represent Alexander the Great; but the fourth beast, according to him, meant the four successors of Alexander. He then enumerated up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes those kings whom he conceived to have been most remarkable for persecuting God’s people in the times of the Ptolemies and Seleucidæ, and ultimately identified the little horn with Antiochus Epiphanes, in whose time he believed the Book of Daniel to have been written. This view has not been without support in recent times.

A third view, which has antiquity to support it, is due in the first instance to St. Ephraim Syrus, according to whose teaching the four kingdoms are the Babylonian, the Median, the Persian, and the Greek. He is careful, however, to point out that the fulfilment which the prophecy received in the times of the Maccabees is only typical of a further fulfilment to be expected in the last days. It exceeds the limit of a note to trace the origin of this opinion in the Syrian Church, and the development of it in modern times. It is sufficient to observe that, like Porphyry’s interpretation, it limits the horizon of the prophet chiefly to the Greek period.

This view, which, more or less modified, finds many adherents in the present day, rests upon the identification of the little horn in Daniel 7:8, with the little horn in Daniel 8:9. If Antiochus is the horn of Daniel 8, why should he not be hinted at in Daniel 7? and if so, why should not the goat (Daniel 8:5), which is known (Daniel 8:21) to be the kingdom of Greece, be identical with the fourth beast of Daniel 7? It is then argued that the period of persecution hinted at in Daniel 7:25 coincides with that which is mentioned in Daniel 9:27, being half a week, or three days and a half, and that the same measure of time occurs in Daniel 12:7. Is it possible, it is asked, that these similar measures of time represent different events? Again, it is observed that there is no interval mentioned as occurring between the last times and the times of the persecutions mentioned in Daniel 7, 8, 10-12, and also that the words in which Antiochus is predicted (Daniel 8:19) are spoken of as the “last end of indignation” and “the end.” This is stated to support the view that the predictions of Daniel are limited by the times of Antiochus.

On these grounds the persecution mentioned in Daniel 7:25 is supposed to be that of Antiochus. The Greek Empire is represented by the fourth beast, while the second and third beasts represent the Median and the Persian Empires respectively. But here the question arises, Are there any grounds for believing that Daniel intended to speak of a distinct Median Empire? The passages alleged in support are Daniel 5:28; Daniel 5:31; Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15. Daniel states of Darius expressly that he was a Mede and of Median descent (Daniel 5:31; Daniel 9:1; Daniel 11:1), and, on the contrary, that Cyrus was a Persian (Daniel 6:28; Daniel 10:1). Also in Daniel 6:28 the writer appears to be contrasting Darius the Mede with Cyrus the Persian, as if each belonged to a different empire. And though the kings of Media and Persia are distinctly mentioned in Daniel 8:20, it is maintained that the unity of the Medo-Persian Empire is not established thereby, because the two horns, and not the body, of the goat are assumed to be the key of the vision. If the brief duration and slight importance of the so-called Median Empire is objected, it is replied that the importance of it to Israel was very great, for in the first year of it the exile terminated, and at that very time Darius was under the special protection of the Angel of the Lord (Daniel 11:1).

Upon this hypothesis the visions in Daniel 2, 7 are explained in the following manner:—The materials of which the feet of the image were formed corresponds to the two divisions of the Greek Empire noticed in Daniel 11, the iron representing the Ptolemies, the clay the Seleucidæ. The mixture of the iron and clay points to such attempts as are mentioned in Daniel 11:8; Daniel 11:17 to unite certain heterogeneous elements in the political world. The silver breasts and arms are the Median Empire, which was inferior to the Babylonian (Daniel 2:39). which, it is asserted, does not hold true of the Persian Empire. Then comes the Persian Empire, which, as Daniel interpreted the vision (Daniel 2:39), “bare rule over all.” Similarly, in Daniel 7, those who maintain the interpretation find no difficulty about the first beast; but the second beast is Darius the Mede; the three ribs are the three satrapies mentioned in Daniel 6:2 (St. Ephraim explains them of the Medes, the Babylonians, and the Persians). The command, “Arise, and devour much flesh,” means that the empire of Darius had a great future prospect, which he would not realise. Then the panther is Cyrus; the four wings are the Persians, Medes, Babylonians, and Egyptians; the four heads are four Persian kings, Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius Hystaspes, and the last, who is either Xerxes or Darius Codemannus. It remains that the fourth beast is the Greek Empire, the first which was of a totally distinct character from the Asiatic empires which had preceded it. The little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes, and the other ten horns are ten kings, who are not supposed to be reigning simultaneously; three of them, however, were contemporaneous with the little horn. The ten kings are assumed to be—(1) Seleucus Nicator, (2) Antiochus Soter, (3) Antiochus Theos, (4) Seleucus Callinicus, (5) Seleucus Ceraunus, (6) Antiochus the Great, (7) Seleucus Philopator, (8) Heliodorus, (9) Demetrius, (10) Ptolemy Philometor. The last three were deposed by Antiochus Epiphanes, the allusion being to Demetrius (Daniel 11:21) and to Ptolemy Philometor (Daniel 11:22-28). It is then alleged that all the events which are explicitly mentioned in Daniel 11 are figuratively expressed by the ten toes of the image and by the ten horns of the fourth beast.

In this interpretation there is much that appears plausible at first sight. It seems to make the whole plan of the book more distinct, and to introduce a symmetry and coherence among the several parts which is wanting to the interpretation given above. But though the truth is simple, everything simple is not true. Grave difficulties will be found, upon closer inspection, to underlie this hypothesis respecting the four kingdoms.

(1) What reason is there for identifying the little horn in Daniel 7:8 with the little horn in Daniel 8:9? In one case it grows up amongst ten, in the other out of four. In one case it destroys three of the other horns, in the other none. Or, to take Daniel’s own interpretation, the “kink of a fierce countenance” (Daniel 8:23) arises while the four horns are still in existence, though “in the latter time of their kingdom.” Bearing in mind that the ten toes of the image correspond to the ten horns of the fourth beast, there appears to be strong primâ facie evidence for supposing that the horizon of Daniel 8 is different from that of Daniel 2, 7, , 11.

(2) Further consideration shows that Antiochus Epiphanes does not correspond with the little horn (Daniel 7), or with the king mentioned (Daniel 11:21, &c.). Antiochus is foretold (Daniel 8:9-12; Daniel 8:23-25) as “becoming great toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land, and waxing great even to the host of heaven,” &c.; but the person foretold in Daniel 7:8; Daniel 7:20; Daniel 7:25, “has a mouth speaking proud things,” &c. In no point do these two awful personages agree, except in blaspheming God and in making war against His people. They differ in many important respects.

(3) The measures of time, again, are different in each vision. Antiochus Epiphanes carries on his destructive work for 2,300 (or 1,150) days, but the Antichrist mentioned in Daniel 7:25 has the saints in his power for a “time, times, and the dividing of time.” By no possible calculation can these two measures of time be made identical. Nor can the same measure of time which occurs in Daniel 12:7 be identified either with the 1,290 days, or with the 1,335 days mentioned in Daniel 12:11-12.

(4) Further, in Daniel 8:9 “the last end of indignation” does not mean the end of all things, any more than it means the end of the captivity. It points to the persecution of Antiochus, when, for the last time in Jewish history, the innocent suffered for the guilt of the apostates. This was a persecution of which the adherence of the Jews to their religion was the cause. Politics provoked later persecutions, but in this they were involved in only a secondary manner. The plain question was, would the Jews suffer their religion to be Hellenised, or would they not? This, again, is alien to the thoughts contained in Daniel 7:21; Daniel 7:25.

(5) Nor is it clear that Daniel knew of a Median as distinct from a Persian Empire. If Darius “received the kingdom,” some superior power must have given it to him. If he was “made king,” some higher authority must have invested him with the sovereignty. Nor does history give us any reasons for supposing that there was at this time any broad national distinction between the Medes and Persians.

(6) Lastly, the empire of Alexander the Great does not correspond to the fourth empire, which is described in Daniel 2, 7. None of the elements of iron appear in it. The leading characteristic of it was not “breaking in pieces and bruising” other empires, but rather assimilation. The policy of it was to Hellenise them, to clothe their ideas in Greek forms, to unite widely separated nations which it had subdued, by treating them courteously, adopting their national customs, and by polishing the whole external with Greek culture.

Great and undoubted though the difficulties are which are contained in the interpretation given above in the Notes, they are not so great as those which are involved by the so-called “modern” interpretation just mentioned.

EXCURSUS F: DANIEL’S PRAYER (Daniel 9).

The resemblance between Daniel’s prayer and those recorded in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Baruch will appear more distinctly from the following table:—

Daniel 9.

Ezra 9.

Nehemiah 9.

Baruch.

Daniel 9:4

Nehemiah 9:32

Daniel 9:5

Ezra 9:7

Nehemiah 9:33-34

Baruch 1:11.

Daniel 9:6

Ezra 9:7

Nehemiah 9:32-33

Daniel 9:7

Ezra 9:6-7

Nehemiah 9:32-33

Baruch 1:15-17

Daniel 9:8

Ezra 9:6-7

Nehemiah 9:33

Daniel 9:9

Nehemiah 9:17

Daniel 9:13

Baruch 2:7.

Daniel 9:14

Ezra 9:15

Nehemiah 9:33

Daniel 9:15

Nehemiah 9:10

Baruch 2:11.

Daniel 9:18

Baruch 2:19.

Daniel 9:19

Baruch 2:15.

The resemblance is due to the fact that most of the corresponding thoughts are taken from earlier works, such as the Law of Moses, or prophetical writings. It will be observed that this similarity can be traced chiefly in Ezekiel 48:4-9; Ezekiel 48:13-19. The language, however, is very general, and can be traced for the most part to earlier sources. A short analysis of the prayers of Ezra and Nehemiah shows that the similarity of the prayers is less striking than appears at first sight. Ezra confesses the sins of the congregation from the early period of Israel’s history down to his own time; he blesses God for allowing a remnant to escape, he then confesses the special sin of which the nation was guilty at that time, and acknowledges that neither he nor his people are able to stand before God. Not once in the course of his prayer does he ask for forgiveness. Nehemiah, after thanking God for His mercies, using the language of Psalmists, proceeds to bless God for the mercies which He has showered upon his people in spite of their frequent relapses into sin. He frequently contrasts the righteousness of God with the guiltiness of the nation, and, like Ezra, does not pray for forgiveness or to be delivered from bondage. But Daniel’s prayer is just the reverse. Not only does he pray for the pardon and deliverance of his people, but he concludes with a petition that he himself may be heard (Ezekiel 48:17-18). It is therefore unreasonable to suppose that Daniel’s prayer should have been founded upon the model of the prayers of Ezra and Nehemiah. Still more improbable is the hypothesis that it was curtailed from the prayer of Baruch. The date of the book of Baruch is almost universally acknowledged to be late, and the prayer contained in it depends as much upon the book of Nehemiah as it does upon Daniel.

EXCURSUS G: THE SEVENTY WEEKS (Daniel 9:24).

It may be questioned in what way this prophecy presents any meaning to those who follow the punctuation of the Hebrew text, and put the principal stop in Ezekiel 48:25 after “seven weeks,” instead of after “three score and two weeks.” The translation would be as follows, “From the going out . . . until Messiah the prince shall be seven weeks; and during sixty-two weeks the city shall be rebuilt . . . and after sixty-two weeks shall Messiah be cut off” . . . This can only be explained upon the hypothesis that the word “week” is used in an indefinite sense to mean a period. The sense is then as follows:—The period from the command of Cyrus or of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem, down to the time of Messiah, consisted of seven such weeks; during the sixty-two weeks that followed the kingdom of Messiah is to be established amidst much persecution. During the last week the persecution will be so intense that Messiah may be said to be annihilated by it, His kingdom on earth being destroyed. At the end of the last week the Antichristian prince who organises the persecution is himself exterminated, and destroyed in the final judgment.

According to this view the seventy weeks occupy the whole period that intervenes between the times of Cyrus or Artaxerxes and the last judgment. The principal objection to it is that it gives no explanation of the numbers “seven” and “sixty-two,” which seem to have been chosen for some particular purpose. Nor does it furnish any reason for the choice of the word “weeks” instead of “times” or “seasons,” either of which words would have equally served the same indefinite purpose.

The traditional interpretation follows the punctuation of Theodotion, which St. Jerome also adopted, and reckons the seventy weeks from B.C. 458, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. From this date, measuring seven weeks of years—that is, forty-nine years—we are brought to the date B.C. 409. It is predicted that during this period the walls of Jerusalem and the city itself should be rebuilt, though in troublous times. It must be remembered that very little is known of Jewish history during the times after Ezra and Nehemiah. The latest date given in Nehemiah is the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, or B.C. 446. It is highly probable that the city was not completely restored till nearly forty years later. Reckoning from B.C. 409 sixty-two weeks or 434 years, we are brought to A.D. 25, the year when our Saviour began His ministry. After three and a half years, or in the “midst of a week,” he was cut off. The seventy weeks end in A.D. 32, which is said to be the end of the second probation of Israel after rejecting the Messiah. The agreement between the dates furnished by history and prediction is very striking, and the general expectation that there prevailed about the appearance of a Messiah at the time of our Saviour’s first advent points to the antiquity as well as to the accuracy of the interpretation. However, the explanation of the latter half of the seven weeks is not satisfactory. We have no chronological account of events which occurred shortly after the Ascension, and there are no facts stated in the New Testament that lead us to suppose that Israel should have three and a half years’ probation after the rejection of the Messiah.

The modern explanation adheres in part to the Masoretic text, and regards the sixty-two year-weeks as beginning in B.C. 604. Reckoning onwards 434 years, we are brought to the year B.C. 170, in which Antiochus plundered the Temple and massacred 40,000 Jews. Onias III., the anointed prince, was murdered B.C. 176, just before the close of this period; and from the attack upon the Temple to the death of Antiochus, B.C. 164. was seven years, or one week, in the midst of which, B.C. 167, the offering was abolished, and the idolatrous altar erected in the Temple. The seven weeks are then calculated onwards from B.C. 166, and are stated to mean an indefinite period expressed by a round number, during which Jerusalem was rebuilt after its defilement by Antiochus. This explanation is highly unsatisfactory. It not only inverts the order of the weeks, but arbitrarily uses the word week in a double sense, in a definite and in an indefinite sense at once. There is still a graver objection to assuming that the starting point of the seventy weeks is the year B.C. 604. No command to rebuild Jerusalem had then gone forth.

CHAPTERS 1–6

The first part of the book, describing the experiences of Daniel and his three companions under Nebuchadnezzar (chs. 1–4), Belshazzar (ch. 5), and Darius the Mede (ch. 6).

CHAP. 1. INTRODUCTION

Chap. 1 describes how Daniel and his three companions, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, came to be in Babylon, at the court of Nebuchadnezzar, the scene of the events narrated in the following chapters (2–4). Nebuchadnezzar, in the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah (b.c. 605), laid siege to Jerusalem: part of the vessels of the Temple and some Jewish captives fall into his hands and are carried by him to Babylon (Daniel 1:1-2). He there gives directions for a number or youths of noble blood, including some of the Jewish captives, to be instructed in the language and learning of the sacred caste, and educated for the king’s service (Daniel 1:3-7). Among these youths are Daniel and his three companions, who, while content to pursue the studies prescribed by Nebuchadnezzar, crave and obtain permission to be allowed not to defile themselves in any way by partaking of the special delicacies provided for them from the king’s table (Daniel 1:8-16). At the expiration of three years, when the education of the selected youths is completed, the four Jewish youths are found to be distinguished beyond all the others in wisdom and knowledge, Daniel being skilled in particular in the interpretation of visions and dreams; they are accordingly admitted to the rank of the king’s personal attendants (Daniel 1:17-21).

The chapter serves a double purpose. It both serves as an introduction to the Book generally; and also teaches the practical lessons of the value, in God’s eyes, of obedience to principle, and of abstinence from self-indulgence. The rule which the four Jewish youths felt called upon to obey was indeed a ceremonial rule, of no permanent obligation; but it was one which, to Jews living amongst heathen, acquired sometimes a supreme importance (cf. on Daniel 1:8-10), so that obedience to it became a most sacred duty.

Da 1:1-21.

THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY BEGINS; DANIEL'S EDUCATION AT BABYLON, &C.

1. third year--compare

Jer 25:1,

"the fourth year; Jehoiakim came to the throne at the end of the year, which Jeremiah reckons as the first year, but which Daniel leaves out of count, being an incomplete year: thus, in Jeremiah, it is "the fourth year"; in Daniel, "the third" [JAHN]. However, Jeremiah

(Jer 25:1; 46:2)

merely says, the fourth year of Jehoiakim coincided with the first of Nebuchadnezzar, when the latter conquered the Egyptians at Carchemish; not that the deportation of captives from Jerusalem was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim: this probably took place in the end of the third year of Jehoiakim, shortly before the battle of Carchemish [FAIRBAIRN]. Nebuchadnezzar took away the captives as hostages for the submission of the Hebrews. Historical Scripture gives no positive account of this first deportation, with which the Babylonian captivity, that is, Judah's subjection to Babylon for seventy years

(Jer 29:10),

begins. But

2Ch 36:6, 7,

states that Nebuchadnezzar had intended "to carry Jehoiakim to Babylon," and that he "carried off the vessels of the house of the Lord" thither. But Jehoiakim died at Jerusalem, before the conqueror's intention as to him was carried into effect

(Jer 22:18, 19; 36:30),

and his dead body, as was foretold, was dragged out of the gates by the Chaldean besiegers, and left unburied. The second deportation under Jehoiachin was eight years later.